Talk:Europe

Previous Discussions:

• Archive 1 (pre-2004):
  Whether Europe is really a continent, Earliest use of "Europa" to mean Europe, Whether Armenia and Georgia are in Europe, The Baltic states, Notes for rewriting, Breaking the article into themed sub-articles, The map, Deleted statements, Whether Oceania is really a continent, There is no... node eight!

• Archive 2 (2004 to 18 Feb 2005):
  The Regions (Updated), Definition of "Northern Europe", Status of the Channel Islands, Extent/Map, The starry flag, The Middle Ages, the Dark Ages and Medieval times, Which countries are in Europe?, Political Nations of Europe, Map of Europe, Links, Caucasus and Transcaucasus, FYR Macedonia's name, Independent "Countries", A geographical definition of Europe, Etymology of "Europa", related discussion about the list of countries, or the Emba River in other definitions, Calculate european and non-european areas of cross-continent countries, independent states, east boundaries, Whether Europe is really a continent, regions map, Greenland

• Archive 3 (18 Feb 2005 > 13 November 2006 )

• Archive 4 (13 November 2006 > 1 December 2006)

Hello, Excuse my knowledge for English and wikipedia, but can somebody edit Kosovo in the new Europe? Kosovo is now an independence country. The map should be changed, and Kosovos flag should be added with the other countries.

Thank You for the understanding, I'll hope you'll take this to your consideration.

Who here is qualified to speak?

Culture does not follow geographic or post-cold war political lines. You are insulting more than 4, 000, 000, 000 people by saying things like Syria has the same culture as Japan. Or that Norway has the same culture as Albania. There is no such thing as 'Asia'. And there is no such thing as 'Europe'. Can you even name me one single thing that the Norwegians and the Greeks, or the Tajiks and the Japanese share in common, to bring them under such a sweeping and extremist label as 'Europe' or 'Asia'? The whole thing is a political illusion. Which you all seem to have fallen for. One thing is for sure, if you haven't lived in a country, you are a megalomaniac to consider yourself qualified to label it as 'European'. That goes especially for Greece and Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

since when have qualifications been needed for Wikipedia. Material on article pages is supposed to be backed with references to reputable sources, rather than un backed speculation, as above.

I'm sure all you other folk agree. I'm sure it is the rules for wikipedia. If someone just wants to push their own personal opinion, perhaps they should set up their own encyclopedia.

Mariya - x -

--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Austrailia isn't a Continent

On the page about Europe The Page it states that austrailia is the smallest continent. I think that Australaisia is what the Admin means. Please could you change it as the admin has locked it for editing.

Thank You --Ravi sud 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe is not part of Russia

Although Russia is bigger than Europe, it is not a continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.134.164 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Russia stands on it own, and while European in heritage, is distinctly different in numerous ways. Otherwise, Europe would extend from Portugal to Kamchatka, even larger if we were to include French Guiana (a French Compartment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantGeographer (talk • contribs) 04:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hellenic Republic, Turkey and Egypt

People talk about Europe as if it isnt extremely controversial. Europe is an illusion. Its not difficult-there just is no such thing as 'Europe'. It is very peculiar to read comments by people who fancy themselves as informed intellectuals on the matter. Especially on the basis of reading books. I dont think anyone should talk about the word - and it is just a word - "Europe", without having lived in at least three different 'European' countries. Unless you have lived in these places you so dictatorially label as 'European', it is far beyond absolutely ridiculous to consider yourself an authority on the matter.

I, however, am such an authority. And it is very simple:

1. There is no such thing as 'Europe'. Its just a word used by governments to bring many countries under one power for the purposes of Westernization. 2. If there was such thing as Europe, Greece, Turkey and Egypt are not remotely European, never mind how much the younger MTV generations may want them to be. 3. Turkey, Greece (correctly called the Hellenic Republic) and Egypt are in the same situation when this idiotic subject arises. I will clarify:

WHATEVER YOU THINK, AND HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LABEL THE EARTH'S SURFACE, THERE IS ONE CONSTANT GROUP: GREECE, TURKEY AND EGYPT ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION, AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS.

If you havent even had first hand experience of both the the West, Turkey, the Hellenic Republic and/or Egypt, you have a major ego problem to think that you are qualified to even have an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

since when have qualifications been needed for Wikipedia. Material on article pages is supposed to be backed with references to reputable sources, rather than un backed speculation, as above.
I'm sure all you other folk agree. I'm sure it is the rules for wikipedia. If someone just wants to push their own personal opinion, perhaps they should set up their own encyclopedia.

Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Size?

How big is Europe in square km or miles? Chiss Boy 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a number of the total area of Europe at the bottom of the chart, but is it accurate? Europe has over 10,000,000 sq. km? It's supposed to be only a little larger than Australia (the smallest continent), which is slightly smaller than the contiguous USA (minus Alaska and Hawaii). The figure doesn't seem accurate. Just a heads up. Chiss Boy 10:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Europe (according to the most common definition) has a total area of about 10.2 million km² -- the figures in this article are accurate and somewhat agree with Encyclopaedia Britannica and other volumes. Relatively, it is somewhat larger still than Australia at which may refer to just the mainland (7.6 million km²) or may also include nearby islands like Tasmania (together totalling 7.741 million km²) and New Guinea), though only less than half the size of North America and slightly larger than the contiguous United States (7.825 million km²). A more precise area for Europe -- 10 176 246 km², or 3 929 071 mi² -- is indicated in the table below, which is the sum total of the countries listed in the table. Corticopia 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Europe

Many people consider Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania part of NORTHERN Europe (geographically and culturally) and NOT part of Eastern Europe. The "Eastern" connotation came after WWII during Soviet occupation times. I suggest you change this Wikipedia listing to this distinction.

According to UN classification they are a part of Eastern Europe. Historically thouse countries (especially Lithuania) were connected to Poland and Belarus, not those countries of Northern Europe. I understand though that you dont want to belong to one category with Russia, but it is historical fact.--Nixer 11:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, please consult the UN scheme for sub/regions, which clearly places the Baltic republics in Northern Europe. That's not to say that they are not commonly included in other reckonings for Europe -- i.e., Eastern Europe -- but, then again, almost all of the remainder of Europe can be classified in Western Europe using obsolete Cold War methodology. This is not useful for the current purpose. Anyhow, the supporting notes clearly allow for various viewpoints (i.e., "the following territories and regions may be subject to various other categorisations"). Cogito ergo sumo 12:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Estonia has cultural connections to Sweden, a northern European country. The other two, Lithuania and Latvia, are definitely part of eastern Europe. It isn't inherently bad to be eastern European. This smacks of the Georgians or Armenians who got into such a huffy that at least part of their countries are in Asia, and thus they can be Asians, too. The Baltic states were also ruled by the Russian Empire before World War 2. Chiss Boy 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Estonia or Latvia have connections to Belarus or Poland other than a brief rule by the Polish-Lithuanian empire (only in the Southern part of Estonia) and being in the Soviet Union (which was NOT voulentary, the Baltic states were occupied during World War II until they regained independence). Estonians are Finnic peoples, they speak a language similar to Finnish. Latvians and Lithuanians are Baltic peoples, not Slavic as some suppose. Latvia and especially Estonia were ruled by Sweden, Denmark and the German order in history, the Baltic nations were in the Hanseatic league and currently, Latvia and again, especially Estonia have more connections with the Nordic countries, culturally (even as little things as the Northern European Midsummer celebrations), lingually (Estonian to Finnish), historically, and above all - economically. Estonia had a population of Swedes living there until World War II when they had to escape invading Soviets. Estonia is even part of the Nordic Battalion Group and shows interest in joining the Nordic Council. Religiously, Lithuania is predominantly Catholic (as Central European nations) and Estonia and Latvia are Lutheran (as the Nordic countries). Russia and Belarus are Eastern Orthodox. Sfdsdfds 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How economically? All the Baltic states, including Estonia, have economies more similar to OTHER eastern European countries than to western or northern European ones. Chiss Boy 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The UN is a political organization with an agenda, I propose using the CIA Fact Book, which is academic in nature--Caligvla 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. The CIA is inherently academic...--Tekleni 09:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The CIA's Clandestine Services are actually a very small part of the organization, the majority of what the CIA does is fact and information gathering, the Fact Book is part of the Library & Reference Publications section of the CIA it has an academic charter. It is often defered to as the final authority on any matters it covers, contact just about any university lib. to confirm--Caligvla 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not more of that "the United States is fascist" conspiracy stuff. Chiss Boy 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

try not to confuse the NSA with the CIA, the NSA is a policy making body not the CIA.

Ah, yet another mysterious sockpuppet.--Tekleni 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

nope it was me I switched from my laptop to my desktop and forgot to log in, hehe...--Caligvla 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Lithuania or Latvia have connections to Nordics other than a brief rule by the Sweeden. Latvians and Lithuanians share same culture and mentality as poles or chehs, not scandinavians, fins or estonians. Baltic langues are quite similar to slavic (both have arhaic grammar). So sometimes they are united as balto-slavic langues;)

Chapter Biodiversity

Please correct the bad joke naming amphibians as "herbivores"!! -- Fice, 5 October 2006

Adult amphibians are indeed mainly carnivorous, but larval amphibians are mostly herbivorous. Herbivorous larval anurans can be the dominant grazers on aquatic algae [1]! I will change it into larvae. Peter Maas 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PROTEST!!!! EtymologIC CENSOR BY WIKIPEDIA

I Could Not Find Here Anymore The Exact Roots Of Word "Europe". That It Has Been Once Placed Here As It Was A Derived Name From Sami Languages.

Europe Reflects Being Western In Sami Languages. As Spelled "A-R-B" Or "G-R-B". Here Now, We Can Only Get Explanations From Greek Derivations Of Origin.

Who Could Ever Be That Replaces Or Hides That Information? (Suggestion: A Broad-Face) Alternatively, Please Tell Me What You Name That Process.

I Hope That I Have Lost My Research Ability Otherwise, I May Think Wikipedia Misleads Free Media.

Pro'blame' Here, Is Not Hiding Etymology But Changing It.

Rew: Europe: A Greek Word? The English Wp States That The Etymology Of "Europa" Is Greek, While The Greek Wp States That It Is Sanskrit! “The Name Europe Emanates From Sanskrit Word "E'rev", That Means West, In Order To It Distinguishes From The "Asoy'" That Meant East That Is To Say Asia.” (Babelfish-Translation Of Greek Entry) H@R@Ld 16:35, 19 June 2006 (Utc)

Friend.. They Do Not Mislead Media. They Hide Facts That Has Been Placed Once Here As You Point Out. There Is A Censoring Mechanism For Constructing A Brave New World Here. Let Us Vote For Protest

GULTEKIN M.GUMUSYAZICI

Actually there is a further alternative to etymology of Europe, but this has been discarded as unacceptable because it damages IET orthodoxy and Greek nationalist sensitivities. It has been illustrated in several studies that Greeks are migrant populations that arrived in the area they occupy today sometime about 1200 years BCE. By this time the Israelites had already embraced sea trade routes that would eventually reach to Iberia and beyond. It is not inconceivable that on arriving in the area the ancient Greeks encountered Israelite trade outposts already present in the area. The visualized conversation between two mutually unintelligible speakers is probably not all that difficult, and some of the questions would have been logical and accompanied by much impromptu sign language and pointing. For the Israelites, who are prohibited from setting up colonies outside of the Promised Land, the only recourse was to indicate their general identity, which is neither that of Israel (this not being in use until Davidic Kingdom), nor tribal identity (this being associated only with lands in the former Canaan), and therefore they would have indicated that they were Evri, the general reference to Israelites as descendents of Abraham. The phrase for this is Evri-po meaning Evri be here. The identification of Jews as Evri is still present in the Slavic language. The use of Evri-po transcended into Evropa Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē, which is the word used by Hellenes. This change is not unexpected in a culture where language is transmitted without the benefit of writing, and therefore vowels are easily corrupted. --Mrg3105 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrg3105's explanation is interesting and worthy of its own wiki page. For the Europe page, it would probably be most useful to acknowledge that any search for the etymological origins of Europe will have to be entirely speculative. as demonstrated by the above explanations, these stories can and will always be used to support various political beliefs. the best that we can do is sketch out the various sides of the debate and make it clear that there is no absolute answer to such a question. avoiding the false and stuffy certainties of the Encyclopedia Britannica should be part of Wikipedia's mission.Fixifex 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, lets "make it clear that there is no absolute answer to such a question" --Mrg3105 10:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

EUROPEAN FLAG

I just look at the flag of United States of America and I see there are amount of stars that Reflects the number of states bordered in use.

Now, I want to know which states are reflected in the flag of European Union. Is there any exact definition for European Union by own flag. Alternatively, does it not cover whole Europe continent? (Though there are no strict borders).

For information on the European flag see European flag. Although the flag is most commonly associated with the European Union (EU), it was initially used by the Council of Europe (COE) and was intended to represent Europe as a whole as opposed to any particular organisation such as the EU or the COE. The stars does not represent the number of member states. Why it is the number of 12 is discussed on the European flag page. Therefor the borders are very strict, as the the European Union has strict borders, as does the Council of Europe (the borders of the member states). Peter Maas\^talk 09:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

'Guadeloupe is an archipelago located in the eastern Caribbean Sea at 16°15′n 61°35′w, with a total area of 1,780 square kilometers (687 sq. Mi). It is an overseas département (département d'outre-mer, dom) of France. As with the other doms, Guadeloupe is also one of the twenty-six régions of France (being a région d'outre-mer) and an integral part of the republic. As part of France, Guadeloupe is part of the European Union; hence its currency is the euro[1]. Guadeloupe is however not party to the schengen agreement.'

Can you please define what that flag has been designed for.?

If there exist no accepted state for that imaginary foundation, (actually it is only an agreement), Would you please keep it clear waste paging from earths discussion.

I want to example that situation as follow. There exists no crusader union defined. Crusaders do never have a flag representing a united state to have a place in history.

Very good. Are you by any chance an Ali G character? Countersubject 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That has taken long time correct it grammatically

"There exists no crusader union defined!" bravo! bravo! I have happy thought about being stucking at these defined crusader, for much great pleasure!

The flag is very confusing on this page as every European associates it primarily with the European Union. It should not be part of Wikipedias program to change this convention. Furthermore there have previously been a poll on this matter (see [2]) with a majority supporting a removal of the flag. I therefore take the liberty of removing the flag once again and hope it will not be put back without support of a Wikipedia consensus. Moravice 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Europe flags.gif

A compromise might be a collage of flags similar to the one to the right. However, it would have to contain all flags of Europe (Lichtenstein, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia. Jersey, Gueunsey, etc) to avoid offense. But anyway the flags are all there in the table at the end of the article, which seems adequate to me. If someone wants to make an eye-catching collage of them all, that might also be nice. --Mathsci 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MAP?????????????

The Newborn state, the Republic of Kosovo, should be on the map! Pease, replace the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DataOpen (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the grey politcal map have Scotland (U.K.) written on it? No other countries, which are actually federated (which the U.K. is not) have the regions marked on them? What is so special about Scotland to merit a mention when other non-soverign regions and nations are omitted? This must be either removed. altered to remove the mention of Scotland or it must be updated to mention all the other regions of Europe!

UK is sort of halfway federated if you know what I mean. Scotland has a national assembly that has far more powers over its own affairs then the Welsh Assembly. For example, it has the power to set its own curriculum and make laws applicable only to Scotland. This has been the case since the Act of Union. Incidentally, the fact that Scottish MPs sit in the London Parliament is a major sticking point for many English as they wield disproportionate power in relation to English MPs.

--Jayau1234 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But the point is that other regions are more federated than Scotland, and yet aren't shown as separate entities on the map. American states have more power than the British home nations--they have their own powers, which the federal government cannot legally rescind or take away, yet often the United States is shown as a single solid color without showing any member state boundaries. Chiss Boy 10:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"American states have more power than the British home nations--they have their own powers," Super powers. How exactly did you conduct this amazing comparison of radically different legal and political systems. Let me guess you started with the premise USA No. 1 and then got distracted by a whooshing noise on Fox. 83.70.219.91 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

- I am getting very big error on the map. It expands right across the page and stretches all the text around the edge, making it almost entirely unreadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.64.163 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Canary Islands

There is a big problem with those islands, Southern Europe or Northern African according to the UN?? The present article is based on the second, but the wiki article for Southern Europe includes the islands and the wiki article about NA excludes them. What to do...?

Bold text== Why can't Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia be listed? ==

Yes, I know they're part of an another country, but still, if they have de-facto control over their territory, why can't they be listed in the table? They're basically independent, but they just lack recognition. They could be listed as this Transnistria (Moldova)! This could help people learn about these mostly forgotten conflicts!

It is a matter of how the United Nations recognizes it. If they are a part of another country, then why should they be listed separately? If they were to be listed separately, then what about Kosovo? ***Lindaige

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Cyprus should have full listings in the table.

There are many definitions of Europe, and in some of them these countries are listed, so why must Wikipedia follow one set defintion? I think it would be better if Wikipedia went through all these points.

Why is Cyprus part of Europe? Isn't it in Asia? Only a pert of Turkey is in Europe, and Cyprus is much further away. If Cyprus is in Europe, then almost half of Turkey is too, right?

The countries in this table are categorized according to the scheme for geographic subregions used by the United Nations, therefore those countries, although part of Europe according to some definitions, are not mentioned in the table! Peter Maas\^talk 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographically, Cyprus is FULLY PART OF ASIA. Since this is about the European subcontinent, it is iffy. Geographically, Cyprus shouldn't be in this article. However, culturally, Cyprus is traditionally considered European. Chiss Boy 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus is part of the EU, so obviously it is part of Europe! Meowy 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Illogical: 'European Union' does not equal 'Europe'. Russia is not in the EU, nor are Norway and Switzerland, so they are not parts of Europe? The island of Cyprus is closest to Turkey (Asia Minor). As well, the Caucasus are sometimes included in Europe (particularly by those in ex-Soviet states, already stated in the article), sometimes not, but usually form its border with Asia. The UN geoscheme (about which this table is generally based) includes Cyprus and the Caucasian states in Western Asia. Amidst all of this, there can be no doubt about one thing: all are constituents of Eurasia. :) Corticopia 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow one set definition of Europe. The article follows the defintion set by Corticopia, and all other definitions are not valid in her eyes. At first I thought her edits were based on ethnic anmosity and chauvanism, but in the end I realised it is just due to her ignorance, and refusal to admit it, and tenacity in watching and rv'ing any changes to this page. Behaviour that is common-as-muck for Wikipedia. So I lost interest. End of subject, really. Meowy 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is revealed in the above is your ignorance. And it's a he. Yes: end of subject. Corticopia 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that Cyprus has now totally disappeared from the list of countries. It was obviously there at one time as there is still a footnote about it. Even if some believe it should be in the Asian sections, it should certainly be reinserted somewhere.--Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And another point.

The Aland Islands are listed in the table, okay, But why is it when I put the Crimea an equal automonous entity it gets deleted! I think the table would be more constructive if, you add regions to it, but by clearly stating that it is part of a country, but deserves to be acknowledge by this examples: Scotland (United Kingdom), Crimea (Ukraine), Sardinia (Italy), Basque Country (Spain) and so on.

I reverted you simply because it looked like vandalism, with a section reading: Interesting facts: "Yurop pwnz" etc. so if you want to change the article please at least do not bring in vandalism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent table edits are being made without any apparent rhyme or reason, making the table effectively useless. As noted in the article, the entities currently listed are according to the UN scheme for countries and regions, while allowing wiggle-room for those territories that are also considered Asian. Psychlopaedist 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is in Europe or not?

I want this topic to be clearly discussed under this topic. I find it silly to put Turkey in the list of Asian countries. Anatolian side of Turkey is geographically in Asia and the Thrace side is in Europe. So, we have to see political and historical relationships of Turkey. I want ask how many of you have seen Turkey playing in Asian football cup? Why is Turkey accepted to be a candidate for European Union if it doesnt belong to Europe? If the deal is cultural history then i advise you to see Turkish constructions in Greece, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia or visit a Museum in Wien to learn if Turks have ever been there. If a religious seperation is the reason, i have nothing to say... I strictly insist on this subject and would edit the entries that show Turkey in Asia unless a offical document is posted here. Please do not come back with absurd maps, because each of them has different borders that supports their unrealibility. I do not want to paint my own and post here. Thanks alot for your contributions..

People, people, this discussion starts every time again here! Please read the article more thorough! Like with Cyprus, etc, Turkey is not part of Europe according to the United Nations geoscheme that is used here on Wikipedia. That is the reason Turkey is not included as European. But other definitions of Europe in the article DO include Turkey, it is even mentioned in the table! Peter Maas\^talk 09:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. According to the book The European Dream, it is technically possible for places like Morroco and Israel to join the EU should the Parliament choose to let them --Jayau1234 11:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is Historical and genetical(DNA) belong Europe Turkish race name is Europid/Turanid and Turanid race belon to European Family and finaly Turkey is in WEOG/Europe in United nations(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group)

Sure Turkey is European —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aegeanfighter (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Turkey is in both Europe and Asia, or Eurasia. Corticopia 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, since when are Turanids considered a European phenotype? They're spread throughout Central Asia and Turkey. Sorry to disappoint you, but the Turks are rarely considered white in European countries, except by politically correct censuses, that tend to believe that Azerbaijan is European as well.Humanophage 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is as European as Spain is African because of Ceuta, Melilla and islands, or as the United Kingdom is South American because of the Falkland Islands. Only a fraction (or colony) of Turkey rests in Europe (the reasons for which are beyond this topic), while its main land and capital lies in Asia. Turkey is an Asian country and wanting to be European so badly is not going to change this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.69.56 (talk) 19:38, 15 August, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Turkey is as European as Spain is African. Who has claimed that Spain is not a (partly) African country? Take a look at Africa#Territories and regions or Template:Countries of Africa. You can't really argue that we can't say A because we don't also say B, when in fact we do say B. -- Jao 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Spain like Portugal is in Hispania, not Europe. So it is neither part of Europe or Africa. 194.46.252.120 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a definition of Europe that excludes the Iberian peninsula. -- Jao (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Only Turkey and its supporters have a deliberate fixation with making this Asian country appear as European in all lists, charts and maps. Unfortunately for them, Turkey is an Asian country with its capital and the vast majority of its territory and population in the Asian continent. I, as an European, don't recognize them as Europeans, and never will — not (only) because of their culture and behaviour, but because they simply aren't. 82.159.69.56 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is memeber of ILO-europe Unesco-europe and others,Turkey is always in european block ex:concil of europe(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) and Turkey will join to EU in 2015 accordingly Turkey and Cyprus must be in Southern European Topic,Thanks for read it.Aegeanfighter

This is not in dispute, but your edits are -- read this page and the archives about the current arrangement. And, per the UN scheme for regions and other sources, Turkey -- and Cyprus -- are included in Asia. Corticopia 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

if its right,tell me where is europe or where is asia even bosphorus is enaugh for difference so Europe realy belong to asia europe is only region not continent like America OK? Aegeanfighter

The Bosphorus is generally seen as a border between Europe and Asia. So Turkey is in both Europe and Asia. However as told before, Wikipedia uses the United Nations geoscheme for the tables and than Turkey is seen as part Western Asia. About your question on continents: there are many models for the number of continents. Most of the times Europe is seen as a continent (like North America or South America), but sometimes as a subcontinent of Eurasia. But please read! Everything has been explained already in the articles, talk pages and archives. Peter Maas\^talk 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the elephant in the corner of the room here is the unspoken premise of NATO membership. While the UK has always criticised the EU, it has been the most vocal member in favour of Turkish membership. The US has also pushed for it strongly. Even though they are both fully aware that Turkey is not a European country. If you really want a good argument for why Turkey is not in Europe, I suggest you read the edits on the Wikipedia Turkey entry. If after reading t, you still think that Turkey is a European country then you are either British (and you hate Europeans anyway), American (the atlas is a stranger to you), or you are a psychopath. Word to the wise, they'll trace your IP. You may want to use an anonymiser first.

It makes no sense at all! Turkey is not Europe, and the arguments used by Peter Maas are ridiculous. They play in the Europeans football competitions? They do, just like Israel. Candidates to European Union? Even Cape Vert are considering to apply. Arabs still have lots of constructions in Iberian Peninsula... is Marroco Europe because of that? The Portuguese/Spanish/British, French, Dutch has constructions all over the world... so we're african, asian, american too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.228.177.213 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Turkey should really be considered European, they've always had a substantial influence on the state of Europe over history (medicine, war). And besides, it's not like Asia really needs any more land is it....? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that Turkey, while having an influence on Europe, is NOT European. Within most geography textbooks, Turkey falls into Southwest Asia, along with the Middle Eastern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iran; the Northern African countries of Libya, Egypt; the Arabian Peninsula and Persia. Even if Turkey is a NATO member and a potential member to the EU, that does not constitute membership in "Europe." -CG (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)ConstantGeographer

Propose Protection

I just fixed several juvenile edits by some anon poster. I suggest making this article protected at least for the short term to keep it from happening again.

Black Rabite 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - religion

I've reverted the changes introduced by an anon IP whereby Northern Ireland was moved from the list of countries or areas with significant Catholic populations to the section of places with large Catholic minorities. According to this source 40,26 per cent of the people declare themselves Catholic. Hardly a minority of the population. --RedZebra 10:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

40.26% is still a minority (less than 50% is a minority). And in English, commas aren't used as decimal points. Chiss Boy 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

N.B. see below: Irish Religion [by the way there is no "Irish Religion" ..but we know what is ment...a religion of the Irish] Osborne 11:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything less than 50% is not a minority you moron! Good God the education in your country must be appalling. If I have four religions, now understand this is a hypothetical point i am putting to you, four religions one of which is Catholic another is Buddhism, the third Muslim and the last is Sikh. How on Earth can anything under 50% be a minority? That is either the stupidity of your nature or you are so ignorant to understand that there may be more than two faiths celebrated in Northern Ireland. What particularly annoyed me about your comment is you told RedZebra how to punctuate his work and then you use grammatically incorrect terminology. If you are going to correct someone at least correct them using correct grammar yourself. Just for your information, in English, which by the way most English people are loathed to see the Americans use, you cannot begin a sentence with the word "And" as you did. Unbelievable stupidity and Ignorance from an American. What should i expect though. "Hey ya got that Y'all?" Pinster2001 September 26th 2007 14:57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinster2001 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah no need to go crazy at him! Also 40.26% might not be a minority, depending upon the percentage of other religions; if all the other religions had only 26% then it would be in the majority. Just to inform you all.. Oh and just to clear things up you can start a sentence with 'And' depending on the situation, particuarly in novels. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Range of GDP - Czech republic is not the last

Somebody included range of GDP in the EU, stating that czech republic was last. Brief look into the source shows there is many other EU countries that are lower on the list (Poland, Slovakia, ...). The last one I found was Latvia, so I changed it to it. Can anybody check the list whether I haven't overlooked something? --Jan.Smolik 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Latvia is the poorest nation. I corrected your small mistake though. --Madhya Prade sh 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not realize comma was not decimal separator. --Jan.Smolik 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

np --Madhya Prade sh 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Central Europe?

I have noticed that there is no Central Europe in the list of regions.There are many countries which don't belong in certain groups,and are supposed to be pur in C.Europe categoryy. Some examples: Serbia - Certainly not in South Europe,Austria,Switzerland,Czech Republic,Slovakia,Romania,etc. I would like to see others' opinions on this issue. Sideshow Bob 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Madhya Prade sh 06:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As indicated in the table/list of regions, with various notes, countries are listed and organized per the UN geoscheme. As such, per that list, all the countries are precisely where they should be. Psychlopaedist 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The UN classification is indeed a preferred solution, and probably the only viable option, not least because Central Europe isn't a clearly delineated region. Incidentally, one or two countries Sideshow Bob argues are Central-European are probably everything but Central Europe. The fact remains that this can of worms is best left closed. The article has a potential to attain the FA status and the last thing we need is to turn it into a battlefield. In the absence of other acceptable solutions the UN geoscheme is here to stay. --RedZebra 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Central Europe? My reply contributes to Europeanist geography by clarifying the mechanisms through which Central Europe is cast externally and internally as a place particularly imbued with culture and identity – a place whose integration with the EU and NATO represents its cultural ‘return’ to Europe. Accounts of Central Europe often mention the intellectual aura and humanist credentials of the region’s political elites. My empirical focus is on Central Europe, defined here as the 12 states of the former Soviet bloc that acceded into the EU and/or NATO in 2004-2007. I use this term not to downplay the many differences among these states or to attempt a ‘representative’ account of them. I rather foreground a particular family resemblance among them – the marked reliance on ‘culture’ and ‘identity’ in foreign policy discourses. These countries are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia. Central Europe is a malleable term. In the early 1990s, it generally denoted the three Visegrad states. Over the decade, as several other countries, such as Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia, started branding themselves as Central European, common usage of the term gradually expanded. Today, Central Europe connotes the east-central European states that acceded into either the EU or NATO in 2004 & 2007. While recognizing that ‘Central Europe’ conventionally refers to a more limited region, I use the term here because common alternatives such as ‘Eastern Europe’, ‘East-Central Europe’, ‘new member states’, ‘accession states’, or ‘New Europe’ are all considerably more problematic. Central Europe is also a politically loaded term. It frames the countries thus labeled as inherently European while simultaneously casting the countries further east – the so-called Eastern Europe – as culturally less European. In all 12 states, key foreign policy issues – especially EU and NATO accession – are legitimized not as much through the vocabulary of strategy and interest as through the notions of identity and culture. Their cultural capital is a constitutive part of geopolitical discourses in Central Europe. Central Europe is widely conceived both internally and externally as a place where culture and identity are especially important influences on state action. This conception frames Central Europe as a cultural entity and casts culture as a causal factor in foreign policy. ‘Central Europe … is a culture or a fate’. This cultural narrative is especially prevalent in discussions of EU and NATO accession, both of which are commonly cast as manifestations of Central Europe’s ‘return to the West’. ‘Europe’ and ‘Euro-Atlantic’ space as well as EU and NATO have come to function not as places or institutions, but as markers of identity. For Central Europeans ‘Europe represents not a geographical but a spiritual notion, one synonymous with the west’. Even during the accession negotiations that tackled everything from sweeping economic reforms to specifications on sausage manufacturing, foreign policy was discussed in terms of culture, identity, and western values. This is not to say that people in the accession states necessarily endorsed this bundling up of culture and geopolitics, but that public debates were based on it. During the Cold War, culture was an important site of resistance to what was widely regarded as an imposed nonwestern political and cultural system – Soviet or Russian. Indeed the very concept of Central Europe as it emerged in the 1980s was the product of identity construction by Central Europe’s intellectuals – not political scientists but writers and philosophers. Intellectuals played a key role in bringing down the socialist regimes, and Central Europe’s new post-socialist political elites include many of them.Madhyako Pradesh lo 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your essay even though I can't say I agree with all the points you raised. In any case, I fear it's wasted here as Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. You might want to take it to Central Europe discussion page here on English Wikipedia, or even try its German counterpart where, if I remember it correctly, there was a debate on the whole issue. --RedZebra 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with all this NATO guff, it has nothing to do with Europe. You mention sausage regulations and economic reforms, that's Europe. Human Rights, Free trade and the removal of war as a political tool is what Europe is about, not americas NATO nonsense. America would never be allowed to join the EU, their policy of executing children and torture is too inhuman. 83.70.219.91 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Every European, myself included, denotes Poland and surrounding countries as Central European. This Eastern denotation is such a North American thing to say. Wikipedia may not agree with me, but then that's Wikipedia's error. You tell any European that one of these nations is "Eastern" and they'll laugh you out of the pub or room you're in.

Another problem I have is the inclusion of Turkey and the other Asian nations in the article. They're even labeled as Asian, so I really don't see why they're being documented as European. This is blatantly false and I find it ridiculous that Wikipedia would even allow for this to go uncorrected. Thelostpatrol 20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, although it's a fact that countries such as Poland are located in Central Europe, for many Europeans it's okay to refer to them as Eastern European. Not much for their geographical location, but rather for their past location as east of the Iron Curtain.--Húsönd 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Accession negotiations

The first countries scheduled to join are Romania and Bulgaria, they are not mentioned in the lead section while Croatia and Turkey are. I don't know the correct status of the negotiations but Romania and Bulgaria should be mentioned first. Can someone fix this? Piet | Talk 14:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Apparently, this bit was left out of the introduction some time after Dec 1. --RedZebra 15:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seven continents

From what I've been able to find, Antarctica is considered to be "inhabited" as there is a permanent population, approximately 1 000 people year-round and up to 4 000 in the "summer". Based on that, I've changed the lead sentence from "Europe is one of the six inhabited continents of the Earth." to "Europe is one of the seven continents of the Earth.". --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Psychlopaedist 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I forgot to add in my post that I had checked through the archives, and didn't notice any controversies with regards to describing Antarctica as inhabited. Lots of discussion as to whether Europe is a continent, but that's a whole different matter... --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I recently revised the lead to read 'seven' from 'six' -- while what constitutes a continent is largely a matter of perspective (which that article needs to do a better job of explaining), the implication that it is one of just six is rather Eurocentric (i.e., implication that Europe and Asia are separate continents (q.v. Eurasia), while America is not). I, too, contemplated revising it again as you did given your argumentation above. Anyhow, thanks! Psychlopaedist 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica doesn't have much of a natural increase of population (babies being born there). Nor do most VISITORS settle down on the continent and make that place home. It hardly counts as inhabited any more than space is inhabited by humans (because of the ISS and Mir before that). And Eurasia should be considered a continent and North America and South America as separate continents--just look at a map--Eurasia is one large landmass connected to Africa by an ithmus. North America and South America are two large landmasses connected by an ithmus. The preceding sentence is opinion. Chiss Boy 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic Alphabet

I think the Cyrillic alphabet should be moved out of the Slavic languages section since there are Slavic languages written in Latin script and non-Slavic languages written in Cyrillic.--Planemo 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More Slavic languages write in Cyrillic than with something else. So, it stays.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

How come? Roughly a half of Slavic languages are not using the Cyrillic alphabet. All Western Slavic ones are written in Latin, and most Southern Slavic languages tend to utilize the Latin script somewhat more often, with the exception of the Bulgarian language. At the same time, the majority of distinctly non-Slavic and non-European nations colonised by the Russians, like the Mongols or the Tatars, utilise the Cyrillic script. --Humanophage 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Arabian plate belongs to Europe

If Asia can include the Indian plate, then why doesn't Europe include the Arab one? Each subcontinent is responsible for massively global culture divisions. Just look at the Abrahamic religion article. After all, the divisions between Europe and Asia are supposed to be based on biogeography and not plate tectonics. The funny thing is, that the Arabian and Indian subcontinents form this demarcation, through their ancient influences. Asia is not bigger than it really is. Geographic terminology should reflect culture, at least in differentiation between Europe and Asia. Europe and Africa have the most intimate relationship with the Arab region, but the Asian and Australian continents and their people have little or no such connections. Perhaps the confusion arose from Asian hordes conquering what is never called "West Asia" in conversation, but is written that way. Some mixed society arose with the Ottoman Empire, but who doesn't know the original name of Istanbul? Can we get some intelligent, well read contributors here who know the Levantine intermixture with Greco-Roman and Egyptian foundations is grounded in reality and not just Hollywood? Maybe I as a Christian should "forget" who the Three Wise Men were, if that is what others want in their ignorance. They were not Indian or Chinese in any form or fashion, but Western as my own bones. No land that was part of the Roman Empire could be "Mongoloid" or Asian in that Pacific sense. Perhaps such Asianists should look to the Indians of the Americas, instead of co-opting my ancient heritage for their own. Rhode Islander 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Continents should be considered GEOGRAPHICALLY, which you apparently don't have an accurate definition for. Europe is obviously not a continent--its border with Asia is far longer and more ambiguous than the ithmuses which divide Eurasia from Africa and the TWO American continents, and definitely more ambiguous than the ocean which separates Australia and Antarctica from other continents. Continent shouldn't be a cultural term. In that case, the two American continents and Australia would be part of Europe. Chiss Boy 10:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Europe is a subcontinent in reality and there are actually a lot more simularities between non-eastern Asia than meets the eye. This is easily seen in the fact that Indo-Iranian cultures and language have a common heritage with the Greco-Romans (Indo-European languages and cultures). Geologically Eurasia is one continent. Zachorious 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a Nazi theory. Rhode Islander 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you feeling alright? Check out the Indo-European article if you are confused. Zachorious 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a theory advanced during the Darwinian era, which paved the way for a lot of unpleasant political situations. Rhode Islander 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't make Creationists look as though they are idiots.

Yes, do that! You'll get 10³ PoHR (Points of Honorary Rhetorics) from ME. (Giggering evilly, does:) Rursus 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean they aren't??? --euyyn 07:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Zachorious brings up decent points. Indo-European languages are related. It is obvious that Eurasia is (at least geographically) a continent--Europe isn't. Both points aren't particularly Nazi ideology, at least not much more than Nazis believed apples grew on trees (which they do--that's the point). Chiss Boy 10:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

States of Europe

I know that there is a link to countries of Europe, but why isn't there an actual list - especially as the languages are listed. Both or neither?

Jackiespeel 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish Religion

In the religion section Northern Ireland is described as being majority catholic while the Republic Of Ireland is described as being majority protestant. This quite clearly a mistake. Northern Ireland could now nearly be described as being split down the middle religion wise between catholic and protestant the Republic is most definitely majority catholic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.94.149.73 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Both catholic and protestants are of the one religion, they arer both Christian" but they are of separate denominations. God Bless you all. Osborne 07:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) - corrected Osborne 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The European Union also featured the world's largest economy"

In the third paragraph, the second sentence begins "The European Union also featured the world's largest economy ..." I do not feel that I know enough about this topic to edit the article but (1) why "featured"? - it seems an odd word, I don't really see where the "featuring" comes in, surely it just is or has; and (2) why is it in the past tense? Thanks, BaffledYetOddlyConfused 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably is a mistake. Featured, while it would make sense, is an odd word to use --Jayau1234 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, NAFTA sports an economy larger than the EU. The article is about Europe, not the EU. North America probably has a larger economy than Europe (at least if Asian Russia and Anatolia are cut out), with the United States only a little behind the EU (with almost 200,000,000 less people to build the economy, too), and Mexico and Canada and Central America and the Caribbean can probably rival the rest of Europe. Chiss Boy 10:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

map

European cultural sphere of influence: countries coloured in blue have received the most influence from European culture, while those in green mix European and indigenous cultures.

I have removed this map which is unsourced - who is to say exactly how much european influence countries have received? also, it does not include the ex-European colonies in Africa and Asia. --Astrokey44 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the "western" cultures of Japan? (one of the most advanced societies on earth), Mexico? (south of the US a major cultural influence of Mexican social life), Brazil? (a high human developmental index, despite the poverty gap and inequal distribution of wealth), Israel? (the settlers came from Europe) and the few East Asian (China and formerly British outpost Hong Kong), and oil-rich Persian gulf countries adapted many European or "western" features? Not long ago (20 or 30 years ago) has the South Pacific islands became independent from European (British or French) rule. India and Pakistan are quite influenced by some degree of European influences, plus they are highly populated countries and like China and Japan, they are ancient civilizations. The map should included India and Pakistan shaded "green" at least, since they emerged to status as major global economic powers and both have developed nuclear weapons programs (they may use nuclear missiles against each other) in the past decade. 63.3.14.2 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I point out the map has errors, and inaccuracy of what countries are direct or partially influenced by European culture. The flourishing and developed Asian economies of China, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and recently, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam joined the list (east Asia should be shaded "green" on the map, but Japan shaded "blue") are indications of the final stage of development in the Asian Pacific rim. In the 1980's and '90s, global economists dubbed the Asian Pacific economic boom, especially in Japan and later in China, as the "Asian century". However, the boom includes the nearly-developed and free-market countries in Latin America, mainly on the Pacific coasts: Mexico (quite prospered in the NAFTA free-trade bloc), Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela (not in the Pacific coast, but possesses oil wealth under the leftist Hugo Chavez regime). I support the claims on Chile or Argentina, esp. since 1990, had a high degree of European (or "Euro-Latino") traits: culturally, economically, politically and socially, the two South American nations in the western and southern hemispheres seem to leaned more to Western Europe. The same case goes to very developed, but small populated Anglo-European countries of Australia and New Zealand are western countries (correct) but yet to compete in the global market economy dominated by Japan, the US and the EU. + 63.3.14.129 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last comment to post. In the 1960's and '70's, the Middle East was on its' way to become a world power, such as Egypt under a genial military leader, Abdul Nasser and his successor, Anwar Sadat, created a major political force. Iran under a 3,000 year monarchy and the Shah regime was heading the course of "westernization" before the Islamic revolution of 1978 deposed and exiled the Shah. But since 1980, most Arab countries had never reached a pinnacle of economic perfection and prosperity. Only the smaller and densely-populated Arab countries with large quantities and oil reserves like Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE (Dubai) are ranked one of the world's most developed lands, except they have recently accepted the idea of representative democracy and moderate Islam in their theocratic governments. Lebanon was once seen the "Muslim window of the west" but since the title went to Turkey, also a secular developing country closely attached to Europe (and expected to join the EU in 2010 or later). And for Saudi Arabia, their puritanical Islamic tradition has heavily clashed with rapidly-changing culture influenced by America and Europe. I wonder how the Middle East may chose the path to "westernization" or radical Islam, this is widely tested in post-Saddam era Iraq where civil war broke out between various Muslim sects in the middle of US army occupation. + 63.3.14.129 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely, if we're going to be pedantic, then we could shade the whole world light green or blue. The old colonial powers of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany controlled most of the world between them in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuriesto differing degrees; apart from North America [to a degree] and East Asia, the world generally uses legal systems based on those of the old European powers. The European sphere of influence is also huge today - fashion, music, food, architecture, human rights, economical models, etc. There is no point creating a map, as you could basically describe the European sphere of influence as "most of the world, excluding authoritarian states." —The preceding --JavaJawaUK 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)unsigned comment was added by JavaJawaUK (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Why excluding authoritarian states?--Dojarca 11:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the American (USA) sphere of influence that is big today, not Europe. At most, that would only be an indirect European sphere of influence, currently. Chiss Boy 10:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Patriotism is nice, but not really objective. Europe has two permanent UN Security seats, the US has one. The EU has recently now surpassed the US in terms of GDP. The Euro seems to be doing pretty well in value against the dollar. The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" seem to have made an astute political judgement, which has increased the political power of the EU, while reducing that of the US. The Russians seem to have loads of new oil and gas. Hmm. How about we forget about sphere's of influence, and patriotism and get back to improving the knowledge of the world.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, including Russia, Europe has 3 permanent seats on the UN security council. 3 out of 5 looks like major influence to me.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The map should have been removed. The article is about Europe, not a hypothetical European sphere of influence. Chiss Boy 10:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Curiously enough, the map seems to provide the most correct definition of Europe of them all. With the exception of Chili, which should be light green due to heavily indigenous influences in culture. It's a real shame that it's not supported by any research or official statements, but it's an excellent map. Humanophage 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a map of racial composition in fact. The countries painted blue have white majority and painted green have mixed european/non-european race population.--Dojarca 11:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't it reasonable to assume that Europe is where Europeans live? --Humanophage 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Ooops, I was only trying to clean up the formatting of the page as it looked terrible. Anyone care to help out and put it all back correctly as I don't seem to have made much impact! 86.144.116.52 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Micronations

I think that someone should add something about the micronations established in Europe. It would be interesting to see what those are. BatzMonkey 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah...recently, a few radicals established a "micronation", the Republic of Sealand located off England in an abandoned oil rig in the North Sea, shows how nutty people can be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.14.2 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Baltic countries

Why is Estonia a part of Eastern Europe while Latvia and Lithuania are part of Northern Europe? At the map on the page all three countries are shown as North-Europeans. (CPBai 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

misstakable about slavic language in saxon and brandenburg

This part sounds if saxon and brandenburg has a significant share of population which speaks a slavic language. The Sorbs (in german Sorben, serbja or serby in their own language) has only 60.000 speakers today. It`s of course an admitted minority in germany but in this text it can be misstakable. I think it`s better if we write "parts of saxon and brandenburg" that`s not perfekt but even better. You can see in wikipedia in the articel "sorbs" that I do not lie. Here is a link to the map which shows the parts of saxon and brandenburg in which sorbian speakers live today. sorbs Enkidu78 14. Feb. 2007

Cyprus is in Europe

Is it not? what map are we folowing? i know that Armenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia are at the same situation but they are not part of the EU, Cyprus is, so shouldn't it be part of Europe? It plays in the euro division in soccer, i could go on forever those are just a few examples, The people in cyprus consider themselves as part of europe, Couldwe make some kind of agreement over cyprus? should it be europe or asia? should it be divided on TRNC and Cyprus?

== Europe topic was messed up by someone! == Everyone, someone deleted all the content for "Europe", and posted some trash about their gf I think. So I deleted that and put in a short description. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CYoungBalla (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 February 2007(UTC).

Map

Image:Europe religion map en.png The map regarding religion should be reworked. you can hardly distinguish prots from caths.--Tresckow 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Svalbard and Jan Mayer from 'Regions of Europe' list.

It has come to several editors' attention that some individuals are repeatedly removing Svalbard and Jan Meyer from the list of territories and regions of Europe. The parties engaging in this behavious have not offered even one word of discussion for their repeatedly doing so, neither here on the discussion page, nor even in an edit summary. They just silently blank it out each time it is re-added.

This is totally against wikipedia protocol. Instead of edit warring, it is considered vastly preferable to explain actions that involve content dispute, and all the reasons for or against them, here on the discussion page. So, I would like to give those editors who apparently do not think Svalbard and Jan Meyer are one of the parts of Europe, the opportunity to make their case in the space below. If they continue to refuse dialogue, this will be reported as run-of-the-mill vandalism, and administrative action against them will be requested. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe an offending editor believes that (per initial edit summaries, but despite notes on page etc. and parallel examples (e.g., Finland, UK)), Svalbard/Jan Mayen are "parts of Norway, no need for separate listing" and that "Norway has complete sovereignty, no need for separate listing." Otherwise, CS, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Corticopia 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are islands such as Portsea, Wight and Shetland not listed? TexasWalkerRanger 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Table per UN list of regions/territories; details in article. Corticopia 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet the UN has no say in this matter whatsoever. Why are the Shetland and Orkney islands not listed? They obviously belong to Norway – you do know this? Why are the United Kingdoms, the German bundesländer or the Swiss cantons not lised separately? Stop making up this nonsense. Dagnabit 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is room for some clarification in the table, given the exceptional circumstances of Svalbard and Jan Mayen. All the other special case entries appear to be distinct dependencies or the like, while Svalbard is Norwegian territory which Norway has external obligations to honor under the Svalbard Treaty. While the need to report separately in some cases is presumably the cause of the UN and ISO designations, the question becomes whether keeping the separate entry in the context of this article is of net benefit to the reader. There should at a minimum be a footnote for "Norway" indicating whether or not the population and/or area numbers include Svalbard or not (a quick scan of the UN site indicates it may in the case of population, but not area). Perhaps the Svalbard and Jan Mayen listing could be included as a second line in the "Norway" row to solve the difficulty. I created and reverted an example of this here - the wording would depend on whether the Norway numbers include Svalbard or not. Having Jan Mayen included is an unfortunate complication - whatever the case of Svalbard, Jan Mayen really is similar to the examples that TexasWalkerRanger mentions above.

For those arguing against inclusion of this entry, please do not simply remove it, especially with edit summaries alleging vandalism. Comments such as "making up this nonsense" over a valid content dispute are not helpful, either. - David Oberst 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Svalbard are Jan Mayen are fully parts of Norway and Norway has full sovereignty over them. They have no such connection as the other areas which are listed separately (and the reason for including them seems a bit vague). There is no way Svaldbard and Jan Mayen can ble listed, other than noting whether Norway's numbers include these areas or not. Dagnabit 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: adding a footnote to Svalbard/Jan Mayen is a good idea, but why should we otherwise have to justify or overcomplicate this because a solitary editor -- and his anonymous IPs -- continues to take issue with it? Neither does this editor have a say in the matter, against the silent consensus during which noone really objected to this entry. As stated upfront in that section, the table/list is based on that provided by the UN ... and Svalbard and Jan Mayen are discretely listed. Both are special entities under Norwegian sovereignty that are recognised under international treaty, and uniquely governed: while Jan Mayen is governed as part of Nordland (point taken), Svalbard isn't a Norwegian county. This isn't comparable to the Shetlands (parts of the UK), but is more comparable to, say, the Isle of Man etc. (which is under the jurisdiction of the British crown), Aland (Finland). Corticopia 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a clutch of IP addys through which this information is continually being removed (still); arguably they belong to the editor in question (sockpuppetry)? Thoughts? Actions? Consequently, I will continue to restore the anonyremovals until compelled otherwise, and others should do the same. Corticopia 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on his(?) talk page, Dagnabit's approach is not helpful, and in regards to the strictly ISO-related changes approaches vandalism or WP:POINT. Even under Dagnabit's own terms the simple removal here is destructive, since the land area and population aren't added into the Norway entry! Repeated removal by an established editor without useful discussion here is essentially edit warring, which Wikipedia has methods of dealing with, and I'd certainly support reverting anonymous IP removals on sight.

But that aside, the question itself is of interest. Jan Mayen does not appear to be a "special [entity] under Norwegian sovereignty that [is] recognised under international treaty" - there appears to be no treaty related to it at all (it was annexed by Norway in 1930), and it is in effect merely a plain (if distant) Norwegian island that is dragged along merely because (for whatever reason) it was included in the "Svalbard" category. By itself, Jan Mayen is a "Shetlands" case. As for Svalbard, presumably the ISO/UN has a need for a code for Svalbard in certain reporting circumstances - (travel movements, since it is outside Schengen Agreement, and things related to Svalbard Treaty obligations), but there is nothing stopping those using the codes from rolling it up into Norway where appropriate (see here). This might be a good case - we aren't reporting a table of "UN reporting classifications", and if integrating the entry into Norway best serves the article, that could be done. Perhaps a single Norway entry with "(includes Svalbard)" might be best, or a footnote "includes Svalbard"? As I mentioned, all the other special entries have autonomous populations or other quasi-sovereign status, while Svalbard does not. No offence to Corticopia, but the "not a province" argument seems somewhat moot, since presumably Norway could declare it a "province" (or "duchy" for that matter), as long as it ensured that it was in compliance with its treaty obligations. I have no objection to a separate entry if required, but it isn't completely obvious that is the case here. - David Oberst 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I only now noticed that this discussion has continued and that Dagnabbit has finally responded... I want to make clear that I do not feel strongly one way or the other about how Svalbard's status should be represented, David's proposal looks sensible to me, but no matter what is right, I cannot stand the unprofessional tactics used by multiple anonymous accounts to push their view of the matter. That is the kind of behaviour that leads to blocks. I wouldn't be paying any attention to Svalbard never having been there, but quickly learned from Wikipedia that by International treaty obligation, **anyone may go there without any passport.** Now I suspect that is the real information that someone doesn't want publicised, but it is backfiring because now even more people like me have found out. Don't worry, I prefer rather more temperate climates myself, so I don't expect I'll be packing my bags this season. But I got a good laugh from Dagnabbit's laying claim above to Shetlands and Orkney, on behalf of the King of Norway! Do I detect a slightly fanatical mentality here...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- I'm unsure, though, why there's been a challenge in retaining this separate listing per the UN listing of territories: it's comprehensive and is used in other articles. While you may not be incorrect regarding the sovereignty of these territories (and I presume they are grouped together due to convenience, even by the ISO, since JM is small and unpopulated), Oberst, I also share CS's exception to the tactics employed throughout in removing it. At its base, removing the entry isn't necessarily agreeable; it may also prompt the question is' Svalbard included (despite its northerly location and unique governance)?' in a single entry for Norway?

Anyhow, at this point, I believe the separate listing for should Svalbard/Jan Mayen should remain, but with a note about those entities. Corticopia 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Europe really a continent?

Depends. Do you consider Pluto a planet? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For that see Pluto-Don't-Care-Dwarf-Planet-Not. Europe is a continent (former Baltica, formed from 2.5 to 1.8 Ga) centered somewhere between Vitebsk and Moscow, bordered by the Alps, Pyreneans, Scandians, Ural Mtns and Caucasus, and some extra fragments pilfered from other continents: Iberia and Italy from Africa, Scotland and West Norway from Laurentia, England, Ireland and Denmark from the ceased continent Avalonia. Turkey is a border case, a matter of taste - I chose that Turkey is a micro-continent in its own right (since it wandered around in the Tethys Ocean before semi-attaching to Europe and Asia). Rursus 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And Turkey isn't in Europe --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( shout! · sign? )} 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aehum ... now, thinking practically: where do we discuss the area Turkey? Whether we truthfully regard Turkey as belonging to Europe or Asia or being a separate continent, do we wish to create an article discussing the Turkey microcontinent? Then, we must do so for Iran, Arabia, Kasakhstania, India, Northen China, Southern China and Tibet also! This gives müriads de continentes, and do we wish such an article layout? I propose putting Turkey within the scope of Europe. Rursus 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of Turkey is definitely in Europe. Without being too POV about it, after a quite a few wars etc. Turkey ended up occupying part of Europe. After a few more wars, a bit of Europe remained within the administrational sphere. That bit is Turkey west of the Bosphorous. We can't really put that ittle bit in another continent just because it was conquered by people from Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe is a subcontinent, which along with Asia (with it's own Indian subcontinent) comprises the continent of Eurasia. A "Eurafrasia" isn't a continent--Africa is clearly and cleanly separated from Eurasia by an isthmus. And North and South America are not a single American continent--North America and South America are two continents separated by the isthmus of Panama. Chiss Boy 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reducing size

"This page is 55 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."

One way of achieving this is by deleting (or moving to a separate list) the huge table of inhabitants, area and capital. Dagnabit 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the table wouldn't serve a useful purpose, as it provides necessary detail regarding the political constituents of Europe; other content can be pruned instead or shunted to subarticles (e.g., language/religion information can be reduced/moved elsewhere without blinking). Corticopia 12:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would attend to this, but I don't have the power to edit protected pages. Therefore: {{editprotected}}. I would copy the bulk of the Languages section into the article European languages. As well, the link to Eurolinguistics should be removed, as that article is a stub (concerning a field of research less than a 4 decades old), and the first link in European languages goes to Eurolinguistics. Readers interested in language(s) will find what they want to find. Xaxafrad 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise with Religions, except I'm not sure the information therein is exactly duplicated. Further, in the See Also section, I would tinker with the section/list headings to get rid of the subsections in the TOC. Xaxafrad 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and copy the information to another article; once that is done, insert another editprotected tag and I will remove the duplicate information from this article. CMummert · talk 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

English spoken fluently by majority of Europe? See Languages section, "Other Languages"

I seriously doubt this is true. A majority of Europe may (or may not) speak English well enough to get a point across, but that's not fluency. Either way, a citation is needed. Nine999999999s 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that needs to be removed. According to List of countries by English-speaking population the EU has a total of 229,850,000 fluent English speakers, which is less than half of the entire population of the EU (about 494 million), meaning it is not a majority. And if you add European countries outside the EU to that it would probably be an even smaller percentage. --Krsont 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed again. It's just clearly incorrect. Alsopoet 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Asia needs to be taken off of the Europe page

Asia is no part of Europe and needs to be erased. Turkey is a European country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.174.138.217 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

What? Chiss Boy 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to erase Asia? I prefer not, if only for the immense amount of work needed. And if succeding to find a suitable tool for erasing it, where should the Asiatics live afterwards? Rursus 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Please state F.Y.R Macedonia instead of Macedonia—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.253.50 (talk • contribs).

The official name of this country is Republic of Macedonia. "Macedonia" can be used for short when it's clear that one's referring to the independent nation, not the region. "F.Y.R Macedonia" is a creation following the Greek dispute over the name of this country. Wikipedia, unlike the European Union, is not bound to Greek nitpicking, so that country shall not be referred as "F.Y.R Macedonia" on this encyclopedia.--Húsönd 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're Greek, aren't you? You seem to be a very vindictive people (especially against Turks, Americans, and MACEDONIANS). Macedonia is commonly used to refer to the country north of yours (if you are indeed Greek), even if the name is the same as one of your northern provinces/regions. Chiss Boy 10:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would have taken the time to check out his userpage [[3]], you would have seen that he is actually Portuguese. And I, a Canadian, happen to agree with his statement. I also that the Greeks have a right to be a little miffed at the appropriation of the name that has belonged to them for literally thousands of years - but that's a discussion for a different page. CanadianMist 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been obvious despite the (lack of) indentation but if you would have taken the time to read his arguments, you would have seen that Chiss was talking to the original anonymous IP, not to Husond. If you read his comment as targeted towards Husond, they make no sense at all. It does sound plausible that the original anonymous IP was Greek. -- Jao 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Geek too. Rursus 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Crooked English

The caption to the photograph at the bottom says that in that city there are "more Euros traded than in every other city in Europe combined." What on Earth does that mean? I'm no native speaker, but I don't think that's English. And since it is therefore unclear what is meant, it should be deleted unless a source is provided. DirkvdM 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand what it means. It means that city (London) accounts for over half of the Euro trade in Europe. But 'than in all other European cities combined' would be clearer grammar than 'than in every other city in Europe combined'. I can't speak at all to the accuracy of this claim. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Brittany is not one department but five

In the article (Languages & cultures, Celtic languages) it is written that Brittany is a department of France. This is not actually really correct: Brittany is in fact formed of five departments. Four of them form the Bretagne region, the fifth being in the Pays-de-la-Loire region. (But regions in France are little more than administrative units, hence the somewhere strange groups of departments.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.62.205.64 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Unbelievable Total Area and Population errors for Turkey

I cannot believe how such egregious errors have made to such a major article of Wikipedia. In the table, the area of Turkey is listed as 24,378 km^2. This is way off, as the area is actually 783,562km^2, making Turkey the 37th largest country in the world, and the largest one in Europe (after Russia, if you choose to count it). It's population is 72,600,000, much more than the 11,000,000 listed. The population density is also wrong: the actual value puts it at 93 /km²

These huge errors raise the big question regarding the reliability of Wikipedia. This article is supposed to be a so-called Core 1.0 article, and yet it contains factual mistakes. It also seems plausible to me that these changes are acts of vandalism, possibly an answer to the debatable question of putting Turkey in Europe or not. I urge the maintainer to fix this problem, and verify the values for the other countries (especially the total numbers). There also needs to be someway to lock some values in some case to prevent such changes in the future. After all, how often can a countries total area change?

Graffitici 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the notes (and specific ref/note for Turkey): figures in the table about Europe include only those values for the European portion of Turkey (per the fairly common transcontinental border through the Bosporus). Ditto for other countries that straddle Europe and other continents (e.g., Russia also in Asia). The only 'mistakes' are those of misinterpretation. Like, how many times does this issue need to be brought up? Corticopia 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say this issue will be brought up many more times, as it probably is the most absurd choice. In which encyclopedia have you seen a fraction of a country's population being displayed in this way? Turkey is obviously transcontinental, but that doesn't mean you can slice it's population. The transcontinental border may be common, but this choice is definitely not

Case in point: there is an article entitled List_of_European_countries_in_order_of_geographical_area. The author of that article asserts that he got the values from the Europe article, and believe it or not, Turkey's population was listed as 22,000 until I changed it. A high school student who is doing research about Europe wouldn't even read the little note that is attached to each country. Displaying both the number for the entire population, and that of the European side seems to be the least that can be done. I am also very curious as to who makes these decisions. Regular users, or people with PhDs in geography?Graffitici 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Absurdity? Is it also absurd that these continental borders are commonly reckoned by geographers to cut across a number of countries, in encyclopedias and other volumes? Hardly. This is clearly spelled out in the introduction, and the content in the table/article simply reflects that; decisions are made consensually and empirically, yet rationally. Speaking of which: of course you can slice an area or population, as these territories possess subdivisions that allow for detailed analysis. Furthermore, the border between Europe and Asia essentially cuts through Istanbul (at the Bosporus), a city of at least 10 million people. The other article you cite deals with area, and contains an inaccurate, unbelievable value far in excess of that listed in other publications (which you changed somewhat haphazaradly); anyhow, that's part of the nature of the beast regarding content in Wikipedia. Listing both totals in the table here (European portion and total) is a possibility, but seems an overcomplication. Simply put, if someone cannot take the time or patience to read the 'little notes' and discussions (lengthy) here and elsewhere regarding this (iterating notions in the intro and elsewhere) while -- per the originator of this discussion above -- commenting at length about errors which don't exist and glazing over other content, then one should wonder why they are commenting at all and are perhaps undeserving of a response. Corticopia 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, I would like to assert that no comment should be undeserving of a response. If Wikipedia is not built on interactions among community members, then I don't know what it stands for. I believe the persons who have the rights and the authority for making changes should listen to such complaints, instead of devaluing them as undeserving of a response. Secondly, the fact that these issues are being brought up so many times suggests that these "consensual, empirical, yet rational" decisions may not be so rational after all. The introduction mentions nothing of transcontinental countries, but announces simply the presence of notes (which is taken for granted anyway). It never says anything about how the populations listed are not that of the respective country, but rather the part that lies on the European continent by UN's definition. As a side note. the only remark I will make regarding the so-called "haphazard" changes I made to the article is that I took the "unbelievable value far in excess of that listed in other publications" from the main article on Turkey. If that is haphazard, then I do not know what empirical knowledge is. And I wonder what your "other publications" are, since the CIA factbook, among others, seem to agree with that number. Perhaps you would want to correct the values on that article too, as it seems you alone perform all the population and area measurements.

Instead of stubbornly discussing a matter like this, one should try to provide an answer. If only a territory of a country is included in a table, then that entry should be labeled as such. Turkey does NOT have a population of 24,378, it has a population of 72,600,000. If one needs to be so rational, then that entry shouldn't be that of Turkey, but rather that of Trakya. The field entitled "Name of region and territory, with flag" should be changed to Trakya, Turkey, and no flag should be included, since regions do not have associated flags in Turkey. Similar changes need to be made to every country that is not considered entirely in Europe. Then perhaps later you would need to answer questions as to why Turkey is not included as a country on an article about Europe, while being a candidate of the European Union.

The moral of this discussion is that Wikipedia can never replace an authentic encyclopedia. Instead of relying on a board of scientists and thinkers, we are left to trust several people making rational decisions, but don't even reveal their qualifications or names. If you solely have the authority and the final say in making these changes, then perhaps you should sign the article with your name(s), and let everybody know that the content reflects the opinions of a selected few, as opposed to the "common sense" of a community. Graffitici 01:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will respond briefly and finally since you seem to have intents beyond those stated. Of course Wikipedia is built on discussion and consensus: the point is that the issue has been discussed and answered -- your commentary merely conflates the issue and is rather droning. The introduction and elsewhere in the article thoroughly describes the fairly common border delineating Europe and Asia, and the locator map and map next to the table below clearly exhibit this; additional notes expand on this. As well, in that other article, you fall back on the CIA Fact Book, but you incorrectly include(d) all of Turkey's area while glazing over Russia and other countries which also straddle the border of Europe and Asia -- e.g., Russia's total area is some 17 million km2. You also happened to glaze over the obvious error of Europe's total area, which was listed as seven times that of its actual area. So your edits are undoubtedly haphazard, perhaps myopic, and arguably subjective -- at this point, I don't care. I or any editor has the ability to correct the values anywhere as specified, to ensure that they are accurate and consistent with cited facts; I can gladly do so. And please note that the UN geoscheme actually includes Turkey in Asia, but is used in this and other continental tables to preclude the willful moving of territories here and there while maintaining some semblance of order and organisation -- barring any mindquakes, there's no reason to change that.

While I have no hesistation to reveal my qualifications, I am neither required nor compelled to do so. You appear to be a fairly sporadic editor and perhaps the error is mine for even having responded in the first place, but there is also a tenet to not feed trolls ... and at this point I am unconvinced that you are not one. Au revoir. Corticopia 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kalmyk language

I heared Kalmyk language is Turkic. Is it really non-Turkic? Any source?--Certh 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's "west mongolian", see Kalmyk people, especially #External links. (However, don't mention "mongol" so they can hear it!) Rursus 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Europa

What does Europe actually mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyingdannish (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Europe is an Indo-European word which consists from two parts: ide Ausā- 'rising' (Latvian aust 'to rise (about sun), to dawn', Latin Aurōra 'morning blaze, dawn, sunrise', ide Ausārā, Latvian ausma, austra) and ide apas 'water, river' (Skr. apah water, river, Latvian ape, upe 'river').
So Europe means Aus(r)ā-apā 'sunrise river', this word later was romanized to Aurō-apā and then greekized to Eurōpē. Roberts7 13:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus in Territories and regions

Why is Cyprus not in the Territories and regions section of the page; surely it should be under Southern Europe? --DanDesio.81.154.96.81 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

My feeling is that either all three countries should be included (with footnotes indicating their contentious inclusion) or all three should be excluded. Certain editors have been making edits that exclude Armenia while leaving the other two, without - it seems - making any attempt at discussion or concensus. To stop the possibility of an edit war, a cool-headed discussion is in order. Meowy 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Feelings have nothing to to with it: the current content was long-ago arrived at and harks of the common border between Europe and Asia. The other states of the Caucasus are generally reckoned to straddle both Asia and Europe, while Armenia, in the Transcaucasus (i.e,, in the southern Caucasus), is generally reckoned to be in the latter. The current article content and table equitably deals with the content of what is where. Shall we foolishly include all of Russia on one or the other too? Footnotes and details are already included to explain those ambiguities, and the tables are otherwise based on the UN geoscheme; in this, all the Caucasus are in Western Asia. To stop the possibility of an edit war, I suggest you discuss and garner a consensus changing content. In pushing your point of view, you have likely breached 3RR -- and you will be reverted and reported. Corticopia 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

actually it is you who has reached the 3RR and, since you have so kindly suggested it first, I will of course report you if you exceed that limit. Returning to the subject, the entry already correctly says that there are various descriptions of Europe's boundary; in some sources, some territories are not included in Europe, while other sources include them. Numerous geographers consider Azerbaijan's and Armenia's southern border with Iran .... as the boundary between Asia and Europe. So the problem appears to be with your rigid holding to that scheme for geographic sub regions used by the United Nations. Just because the United Nations defines something one way doesn’t mean that there are not different views that should be taken account of. I could quote a host of references that will say that Armenia is part of Europe. Your exclusion of Armenia but inclusion of Azerbaijan is just dogmatic. I suggest that the rigid adherence to that UN definition in the Territories and regions section should ended, but it should still be stated that the listing roughly follows that UN definition except when stated otherwise. Meowy 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, your problem is the willful imbalancing of content. Yes: please provide those reputable sources that include Armenia in Europe. A number of geographers do reckon the southern border of Azerbaijan and Armenia to form the border between Europe and Asia (which is already states in the article), but (per the article) many more indicate that it is the main crest of Caucasus Mountains that forms this border. In addition to sources already listed, including the UN, I can provide a wealth more to corroborate the current article/table content: a number of atlases already do. And the article already accommodates for this ambiguity, indicating that there are variances on the scheme as needed. I see no reason to forego the prior arrangement. I suggest that your willful edits -- predicated on the grounds that "Armenians on Hyeforum have been whining and whinging about it but are too ignorant to know how to edit Wikipedia" -- be discarded, since the table is now a hodge-podge meant more to reflect whatever you believe Europe to be. And until you cite sources and garner a consensus to support your edits, your edits will be dealt with as such. Corticopia 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a number of geographers but numerous geographers (according to Wikipedia:Geography of Europe) consider Azerbaijan's and Armenia's southern border with Iran as the boundary between Asia and Europe because of political and cultural reasons. The main crest of the Caucasus mountain range does indeed form a conceptual border between Europe and Asia – and has done since Classical times (note for example the legend of Gog and Magog, banished beyond the edge of the Known World, behind the Caucasus mountains). But it is the countries bordering the southern side of the crest of the Caucasus (i.e. Georgian and Armenia) that are considered to be part of Europe, and not those on the Northern side. Meowy 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and you are just being argumentative -- there is nothing new in your commentary, and you have not provided sources as requested. Self-references to Wikipedia articles are insufficient, and there is a distinct difference between what 'numerous' geographers indicate and what 'many' or 'most' do. For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica indicates Armenia "(fronts) the northwestern extremity of Asia", and MOST of the sources at this online resource (e.g., CIA) indicate the same. Not one indicates Armenia is in Europe. So, I defer to my prior comments: your edits, without consensus or much sense, will not stand. Corticopia 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com gets its answers from Wikipedia, everyone knows that! So, remember your self-references to Wikipedia articles are insufficient comment. Britanica is a subscription website and the full entry is not free to view so I cannot comment on it. Meowy 23:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets examine that scheme for geographic subregions used by the United Nations. Actually, there is a bit of misrepresentation, because the correct title is Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use (see [4]) To quote from the UN site: The geographical regions and groupings of countries and areas included at this site are not comprehensive but only a selection which are or may be used in the compilation of statistics. In order to ensure consistency in statistics and for convenience, each country or area is shown in one region only. And The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. Thus the UN makes it quite clear that their organisation of the regions are for statistical convenience and not for geographical, cultural, or historical or ethnic reasons. There is no reason for those UN-defined regions to be used as the sole basis for deciding what is and what is not in Europe - even the UN says that! And Corticopia is breaking his own rules by including Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey in the listing (all defined as being in Western Asia according to that UN categorisation) but excluding Armenia (a country which is entirely surrounded by those 4 countries and which the UN also defines as part of Western Asia). Corticopia seems to have an untenable agenda – the exclusion of Armenia from an entry about Europe, and the inclusion into the entry of certain Turkic countries (including Kazakstan - which by anyone's definition is not part of Europe). Meowy 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to employ sophistry and misrepresentation to push your point of view. Answers.com iterates a number of reliable sources: excluding the Wikipedia mirror, it exhibits Britannica (Concise), the CIA World Fact Book, Houghton Mifflin reference ... all of which indicate Armenia is in Asia. Here's another: the Columbia Encyclopedia (also in Answers.com). Plus, the UN scheme, that's at least five reliable references that support this position. Despite your verbiage, you have provided NO sources and fall back on polemicism to back your viewpoint. And I am not breaking any 'rules': as discussed before and throughout, the article presents content equitably and accurately -- look at the effin map at Europe, which exhibits the commonly reckoned border! The table merely reflects that content: it is modelled on the UN scheme (whcih corroborates the sources above) for organizational purposes, but provides leeway for those territories which may be ambiguous (e.g., Russia, Turkey, Georgia). And any continued commentary from you regarding my motives, vis-à-vis yours which you've clearly stated (pro-Armenian Euro-inclusionist?), will be ignored. Make and substantiate your case, or get lost. Corticopia 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have completely ignored everything I wrote about the UN definitions, again revealing how untenable your bigoted arguments are. You are simply misusing those UN definitions. They are definitions intended for statistical use only, and they should not be used in the way you are misusing them. For example, one definition of Armenia is that it is a transcontinental country; a country belonging to more than one continent. However, there is no recognition of that concept in those rigid UN definitions because, as they have stated, for statistical reasons a country cannot be placed into two of their categories. Meowy 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of yours has been ignored. It is you who, despite excessive discussion beforehand/throughout, have completely ignored everything else. Please provide sources to support your position, and consensual reasons as to why your version is an innovation that should usurp another agreeable version which has been in place for months. Otherwise, your contributions will be reverted. And until you produce, I am ending my involvement in this 'discussion.' Corticopia 00:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia seems to be adept at ignoring rather than answering all the points I have already made! It is late here, so I will not write anything more. Maybe by tomorrow he will be able to explain why he thinks all the countries that surround Armenia should be included in his definition of Europe, but that Armenia itself should be excluded. Maybe he will also have time to look at a map of the Caucasus region. He has already admitted that the spine of the Caucasus Mountains forms a border between Asia and Europe. Is his geography so hazy that he thinks the northern side is in Europe and the southern side is in Asia? For some sources that say that Armenia is part of Europe just read the introductory section of the wikipedia entry on [Armenia], and then go to references 1, 2, 3, and 4. Meowy 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm unsure what you're adept at, except at gibbering and perhaps resembling a troll, which I refuse to feed hereafter. Your points have already been dealt with, and no new information has been provided. And yes: it is not just my position that these territories may be delineated so cleanly but one that a number of reliable publications endorse. Your table edits have conflated content inappropriately and, frankly, suck rocks. Again, stop whining and garner consensus for your edits, or count on them being expunged upon your return and thereafter. Good night, Irene. Corticopia 00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-Armenia version for now, without prejudice. Given the various nationalistic struggles that can plague these sorts of articles, it is best to keep the existing consensus unless and until a new one develops here on the Talk page. Please avoid ad-hoc arguments - Wikipedia has no need to do its own amateur geography work. As I see it, the main points of interest would be the basis for including Armenia in the Council of Europe, and whether the EU considers Armenia a part of Europe for future membership purposes. Remember, however, that the current table is geographical in nature, and an appropriate "European part" of Armenia would have to be identified, as is the case with Turkey or Azerbaijan.

Incidentally, it might be useful to look at some way of visually emphasizing the "partial" nature of some of the countries in the table (beyond the footnotes), to avoid the ongoing confusion over them. A background color shade of their table cells, italics, the use of some word like "partial", or some other indication might be considered. - David Oberst 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree with maintaining the status quo. Don't get me wrong: I acknowledged assertions of what may or may not comprise Europe/Asia/Eurasia, but it is important to present this information equitably ... which I believe the current table does. Recent edits have been so not that. However, it is also important to note that membership in international organisations (e.g., Council of Europe, EU) is not synonymous with definitions for traditional geographic entities -- i.e., the EU is not Europe, just as NAFTA is not all of North America, etc. Similarly, I believe the Armenia article does have a pro-European kick to it, despite a number of reliable references which indicate otherwise (e.g., provided above), and should be refactored somewhat. Anyhow ...

However, your suggestions for enhancements seem prudent. Perhaps we can test one or a number of arrangements before implementing them here and elsewhere? Corticopia 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, given that so much of what you wrote is your personal opinion why not file an RFC on the topic to see a broader range of opinions? You kept mentioning consensus, I didn't see any.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, this is your opinion. At least I have cited sources to corroborate my 'opinions'. Anyhow, I would have no real objection to filing an RfC, which I believe would likely yield something similar to the current state: an equitable and balanced presentation of information, with fringe elements believing this or that and wanting to skew content (e.g., Euro-inclusionists) or what have you. Another possible outcome is indecision and a mish-mash of information, which would not be encyclopedic and serve no useful purpose.

As well, through mild rigmarole, these tables have more or less prevailed for at least a year, so per WP:CON there already is a consensus regarding this (e.g., 'silent majority'). I frankly have no stake in including this and that wherever, though many of the editors who have sought to include or exclude certain territories apparently do (and have been demonstrated as such). Eyes wide shut. Corticopia 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

These are not European countries, culture or people, look in any reference book, start with the CIA Fact Book. These countries should be removed from any and all association with Europe. I know many in these lands would rather be associated with Europe than their own region of Asia Minor but this should be a source of accurate information not wishful thinking. --Caligvla 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim population percentage

An anon editor recently changed the Muslim percentage in the Religion section from 5% to 10%. The Islam by country article comes up with 6%, and some quick Googling also seems to indicate that 10% might be high. Certainly whatever the number a source should be provided, so I've added a citation tag, and reverted to the previous 5% for now. Do any of the EU agencies have a central estimate? - David Oberst 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

European (people)

I note that unlike other geographical areas we do not have a separate article to address the existence of "European" as a people. I accept "European" is not technically a race, or an ethnicity, but in New Zealand "European" is the most common term to describe the ethnicity of our white population.

I propose two alternate options, and would be interested to see what is preferable: a) The creation of "European (people)" to describe the geographic distribution of people with European ancestry, or who identify with European ethnicity. b) Inclusion within this article information pertaining to the existence of Europeans in Non-European countries such as South Africa, USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc.; particularly countries such as New Zealand where that population ard still considered European by most forms of official documentation. A.J.Chesswas 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm going to create a separate article.A.J.Chesswas 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I removed the section on religion - an anonymous user changed a section about an increase in religiousness to one about a decrease but the new section seemed equally opinionated and contained weasel words. I think until some proper facts and statistics can be cited - at least so we can agree whether religion is on the rise or in decline - across the whole of Europe, the section shouldn't exist. Depending on timescale, I suspect it's possible to argue for a rise or a fall but this all needs to be put in its proper context. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Czech Republic in Eastern Europe and Austria in the Western one?

Just because of the Cold War? Wake up and smell coffee! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.127.49.98 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The coffee has long since brewed and passed through us: it's due to the UN geoscheme. Corticopia 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Czechs like to refer to themselves as being located in Central Europe. Prague is west of Stockholm after all..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligvla (talk • contribs)

Austrians are germans.

Is Europe a continent? Is America two of them?

In the beginning, Europe was a continent. Then we discovered America and it was added to the party. Then the collonists revolted (because of taxes in the North, and because of Napoleon in the South, more or less), became proud of themselves, and each part (North and South) considered being a whole continent to be cool. Then some geographic standards were found to justify it. And then the criterion was applied to Europe so their former sovereigns wouldn't be a continent anymore. Finally it was thaught in schools, and each time we met the discussion arises.

Come on, "continent" isn't but a bunch of letters. This is a Newspeak problem: If you change the definition you cannot come later expectiong we accept your new definition. It makes sence techtonically and all you want, but you could have picked a new word, or at least provided a new word for the old definition, so dictionnaries wouldn't fool us into thinking that "continente" in European Spanish is the same word as "continent" in American Engish. Now we have an encyclopeadia in "English" and cannot decide what definition to use!

What are we supposed to do now? If we pick one of the definitions, our articles would result odd for the other half. Maybe we should come up with the new word...? "geographical continent"? "land-mass continent"? "traditional continent"?

Damn.

(Then we could speak of poor Pluto, and the great and enormous transcendence calling it a planet or not has in Planetary Physics. I believe old wrong scientific theories have been trashed and new discoveries have been made thanks to the new labelling.)

Skip the trolling bits in the first paragraph if you're from the American side and not in a good mood today. --euyyn 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Information error

This article says that the Denmark Strait lies just north of Denmark (on the blank map with text all over it). The Denmark Strait does not lie here. It lies between Iceland and Greenland. --Ysangkok 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I spotted that one too. Can someone in the know please fix it?

Georgia a part of europe?

I say no, If you use google most maps and even the CIA world factbook do not show georgia, armenia or azerbaijan as a part of europe but a part of Asia. Even this site lists them as a part of asian also, so I think removing that region from europe on your map and put them as a sole part of asia would make more sense.

Only those (northern) portions of the Caucasian states are included in this table, which equitably reflects the common border between Europe and Asia. Other territories are similarly treated: e.g., Russia, Turkey. Corticopia 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

there are different versions of where the border goes between europe and asia. there is no official border so if someone has the ambition of making objective articles without bias, they should either include all of the versions or if they chose one they should say why they chose it. CIA world factbook is not a world standard setter. there is council of europe that lists georgia in europe and BBC and many other websites as well. Please include all the versions or STATE why you chose THIS particular version of borders and not other ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polscience (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I say all of Rome is Europe. That includes Georgia and Northern Africa. --euyyn 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Culturaly they are Europeans. So yes.

Culturally, the United States of America is European. But that doesn't make it in Europe!Mariya Oktyabrskaya 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The United States culturally is not in Europe. the US has its own culture and being colonized by europeans does not make them european. When it comes to Georgia (and other countries in the region), it is culturally and in every other way in Europe. It is the member of council of europe which classifies it as european and they are about to join NATO ( only european nations can join NATO- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization charter says). Also the first "Homo georgicus, which lived roughly 1.8 million years ago in Georgia, is the earliest hominid to have been discovered in Europe". all the sources clearly state.Dear, Mariya Oktyabrskaya, I understand that Russians (I assume you are russian) and Georgians are not on very good terms right now and the RF does everything to stop the process of european integration, but I have to remind you that this is not a political opinion survey and we should stay as objective as possible. I completely understand that there are no Clearly defined borders and there are many versions. That is why all these people are asking is to include all of them , because none of the borders are proved to be official. I think choosing something just because you like it is not correct and makes this ensyclopedia unreliable and full of bias. Polscience (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Polscience 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

North Africa is european? are you kidding me? so now i guess the middle east is european, too. Come on, North Africa is north africa. Just the same way as Azerbaijan and Armenia and Georgia are in ASIA. an official border is an official border, people. dont try and change it, and the excuse that they have "european cultures" is absurd. They have cultures of their own, just as every other country.

Asiatic Russia isn't part Europe

Russia is asiatic country, not an Europe. Culturaly and geographicaly they, together with Mongolia and Kazakhstan, mostly belongs to asia.

And Europe finishes at the Pyrenees, Franco said. All the discussions in this page about country X being or not part of Europe can only come to one conclussion: there isn't consensus about it. And so should it be reflected in the article. Wikipedia is easy... --euyyn 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone doesn't seem to know Russian history too well. I think you will find that Russia was explored and settled by Scandinavians. Culturally, Peter the Great went out of his way to Europeanise the country. The great 19th century writers (Tolstoy, Dovstoevsky, etc.) were deliberately writing "European" novels. The Asian bit was added long after the European bit was colonised, and there has never been much happening beyond the Urals.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

I know that Armenia is in Europe. So why is it not in the the table of countries in Europe. I mean if Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey are part of Europe than obviously Armenia is too. Everyone knows the controversy of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey being part of Asia right, but if now they put Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey in the list they should put Armenia in it too. It is like saying all the states of America are states of America accept for Florida. It makes no sense. An anyway I tried to put Armenia on the list and I could not, so if anybody can could they do that so others using this website will not get wrong information. Thank You.

No mention of Ummayad Dynasty and Ottoman Empire ??

Ummayyad Dynasty ruled Spain and Portugal for 750+ years, from 711 to 1492 until the Reconquesta, and Ottomans ruled major areas of Eastern Europe from Greece, Macedonia, Romania..etc all the way to gates of Vienna, for 600+ yrs. The Ummayad Dynasty had made significant advancement in technology during their era in Spain. Shouldn't there be some information about them ?. - alif.

Well, it doesn't mention Mongols either, does it? The Ottoman Empire, namely Turkey, is mentioned as well and even included into the definition of Europe, according to some rather dubious definitions. Humanophage 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Europe is the 5th largest continent not Antartica

If Russia is a part of Europe, then Europe is clearly larger than Antarica. The Antartica page needs to be ajusted too.

Russia is technically a part of Europe till the Urals. The definition is faulty, since it's difficult to include native Caucasian or Turkic-speaking nations into Europe, but it would be controversial to define Europe the way it was defined in the beginning of the 20th century, so they just place it all there. The rest of Russia would be roughly of the same status as Canada, had it still been a part of Britain, i.e. a major largely uninhabited territory with almost non-existent natives, mostly populated by Europeans. Humanophage 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

European flag

Someone objected to this being used in this article, even if the flag is meant to represent the whole of Europe, not just the EU, as expressed in the European flag article. I did revert it on principle as I thought that it would be a good idea to have some kind of debate on the matter. I understand why someone may find objectionable for it to be used but I also see the reasons for it to be in the page and leave it up to the reader to follow the link and make up his own mind. In the meantime, I will be adding a footnote explaining the matter. Regards, --Asterion^talk 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Eastern Border Of Europe

As have been pointed out in early history the eastern border of Europe has been located at River Tanais (Strabo and others), then to River Itil (Volga), extended later to River Emba, then between the Caspian and Urals to River Jaik, (Ural). Then following the Ural mountains to Kara Sea. My grand mother when forced by the Bolsheviks to join in one of the "voluntarely young women brigades" in late summer 1919 from Petrograd to Orenburg to collect harvest there, said that the local inhabitants considered River Jaik (Ural) as the border between Europe and Asia. But here is a confusing point. The original Orenburg (a Cossack outpost and fortress) was built to the confuence of Rivers Jaik and Or at the place of current town of Orsk. Only later being removed to its current place on the confluence of Rivers Ural (Jaik) and Sakmara. When the Samara - Ufa - Zlatoust - Tsheljabinsk railway was built in 1880s a statue was placed on the border between Ufa and Orenburg Provinces between Zlatoust and Miass to mark the border between Europe and Asia in Southern Ural Mountains. Later, in Soviet era during the thirties when Magnitogorsk was built, the local inhabitants and new settlers said the "industrial city in two continents" and today it is claimed to be the only settlement in world where you can travel by tram (street car) between Europe and Asia crossing by bridge the River Ural (ex Jaik). There are some other land and memory marks which shows the border in Central Urals but the exactly border has (as far as I know) never been drawn. One claim is that it follows the border between Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai then the border between Komi Republic and Tjumen Oblast. Other sources say the border follows the highest peaks in Urals. Thus, it seems to be correct to take as border the River Ural over its entire lenght from the mouth in Caspian Sea to its springs north of Rysajevo, Lake Beloje, near Gruglaja Sopka Mountain (1016 metre a.s.l.),Peak of Uimash Mountain (874 metre a.s.l.) Nurali Heights, and then eastward to the spings of River Miass following the course of Miass River to Argazinskoje Water Reservoir, then the course of River Atkis to Lake Bolshoi Agardjash, thence over the land to Lake Ufimskoje, following the course of River Ufa to its confluence with its tributary River Visert. Then the course of River Visert to Visertskij Water Reservoir and further north of the upper course of River Visert to its springs. Then over land to the River Utka at Sabik following the course of River Utka to the confluence of its main stream River Thusovaja. Then Following River Tshusovaja to its confluence with its tributary River Serebrjakaja at Ust Serebrjakaja. Then following the course toward north of River Serebrjakaja to Podpora Gora on the border between Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai. Next logical border river is the upper course of River Tura up to the confluence with its tributary River Is just east of settlement Is. North of Is are several named heights of Central Urals just as Sarannaja, Beresovyj Uval, Murzinskij Uval, Tshernaja, Belyj Kamen (763 metre a.s.l.). Then toward north following the upper course of River Kurbja to its confluence with its main stream River Kosva. River Kosva to its confluence with its tributary River Typyl. River Typyl where it reaches the border of Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai. North of this point the current border line between Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai which run along the water shed up to Mountain Peak 1024 metre a.s.l. is the natural border between Europe and Asia. Also the border between Komi Republic and Tjumen Oblast is natural, except in the far north where in the the Pojarnyj Ural it should have been followed little more different course following Mountain Peaks of heights 1246, 1343, 1295, 1036, 1338, 1128, 718, 644, 483 abve sea level, Sejabpy Gora (174 metre a.s.l.) and thence along the course of River Ngozavesjuto to Bajdartskaja Bay at Kara Sea.

JN

Fauna

The Field Museum displays a few specimens from Europe. Would it be all right to post some images here to see if they are acceptable to the editors of this article? --Ancheta Wis 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Constantine is responsible for the spread of Christianity

I am going to give references to all the material that I am going to present. If you need more info. on the books or authors let me know. I only want to provide a honest straight narrative of the history of Europe. My point is that Constantine the Great and the Roman Empire were responsible for spreading Christianity to Europe in the 4th Century AD as opposed to the time Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as the "Emperor of the Romans" in the 9th Century AD, which became the Holy Roman Empire and that became the Habsburg dynasty. If anyone disagrees with my explanation as why my revision should not remain, please let me know. We should come to an agreed consensus and I hope the referenced material I am going to provide proves this. I took nothing from any of the links from Wikipedia so I suggest you check these out too. I got everything from my books. I used 5 seperate books, if need be, I can provide more sources. I am kinda embarrassed but I don't remeber exactly the proper way to do historical references nor do I know the system of putting up references on Wikipedia, but I will do my best....

The year 306 AD Rome and Italy were much less vital to the empire than they had been in the days of Hannibal or Augustus, but the ancient seat of power still had sufficient mystique that possession of it made it of great moral value to its imperial possessor.(1) In the West, the struggle was Maxentius, who had seized Italy and North Africa, and Constantine, who had suceeded his father Constantius as Western Emperor. in 312 Constantine invaded Italy and defeated Maxentius at Turin and Verona.(2) Constantine himself needed a to unite and inspire his troops, with the very conception of legitimate succesion under Diocletian system. He found God, or God found him, in a vision of a cross across the sun, a phenomenon that does in fact naturally occur under proper atmospheric conditions. Having seen the amazing sight, Constantine later told a biographer of a dream in which the long persecuted Christians had shown him a 'rho'[P] crossed with a 'chi'[X] and commanded 'In hoc signo, vincere'(In this sign conquer). If for no other reason than their remarkable persistence in the face of extensive persecution, the Christians were a moral force in the empire, and the soldiers accepted the generals vision and painted their emblem upon their shields. Constantines army had victory and vision on their side.(3)

He defeated Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge and made Christianity the state religion, confiscating temple treasure and building many new churches. This left him undisputed ruler of the Western provinces.(4) In 313 at the Edict of Milan constantine granted the Christians toleration and almost immediately, with the emperors patronage, an impressive building programme of cathedrals and churches started in Italy. In a few years the enormous Basilicas of St. John Lateran and St. Peter were built in Rome. Christian bishops were allowed to give Roman citizenship to slaves, and conduct their own lawcourts. A new heirarchy and a new kind of authority had come to Italy.(5)

At the Edict of Milan, Constantine iniated the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The conversion of parts of the Roman elite and promulagation of Christianity by Roman administrators set Europe on paths towards conversion, but fairly quickly the Church gathered its own momentum. charismatic individuals, some isolated holy men and women, others popular bishops and clergy, held great sway over local populations, while shrines devoted their lives to spiritual salvation achieved renown across Europe. Impressive ecclestical practices, such as cathedrals and monasteries, based upon traditional Roman imperial structures, began to replace these on the nascent urban landscapes across the continent.(6)

In 316 Constantine felt strong enough to attack his rival Licinius seizing Greece and the Balkans. The ensuing truce lasted until 324, when Constantine finally defeated Licinius; his victory reunited the Roman Empire. He also took personal interest in theology, participating in church councils at Arles in 314 and Nicaea in 325, and baptised on his deathbed in 337.(7) At Nicaea he presided over the first ecunenical council, representing the whole church, which defined beliefs for all Christians. A full ecclesiatical organization developed, with a heirarchy of bishops and a framework of patriarchates, provinces and dioceses throughout the empire.(8)

The two halves of the Roman Empire remained linked for half a century after the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Only in 395 AD, with the bitter death of Theodosius, did the complete break occure(9)

So based on that information, without Constantine and the incredible sway he had over the population and the networks and well connected logistics and roads of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread rapidly and uniformly. At this time the Roman Empire was from Europe(England, France to the Rhine, Belgium, Swiss, [[Austria}], Spain, Italy, The Balkans, Greece, the Near East and North Africa). This is the majority of the known world at this time and without Constantine church councils, massive religious reforms, tolerance and promotion of christianity and the Roman empires connected and integrated society and logistics this would have never been possible, and Christianity may never had the chance to grow as it did. Nonetheless, it was constantine who gave Christianity its acceptance to the empire, its freedom to develop, the money and donations provided by the emperor for it to prosper, and its greatest push to a incredibly large, homogenious(culture-wise) society. If their is any disagreement with what I am saying please let me know. But please bring references and factual material, as that is the only thing that will suffice. Thanks for reading

1)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007)*

2)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

3)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007

4)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

5)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

6)A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)

7)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

8)G.Parker(ed.), "The Compact hsitory of the world."(Times books, 1995)

9)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

• Books has 5 different authors if you need me to name them let me know.(Scipio3000 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Sorry about the confusion between the HRE and Byzantium. The article at present distinguishes between the empire of Ancient Rome and what it later became. The ancient romans worshipped a completely different set of deities and allegedly fed christians to the lions, so your unqualified inclusion of the Christian religion in the first paragraph seemed misleading. Also this very brief history mentions no individuals, so I don't think Constantine can be the one exception. Is it possible for you to include an uncontroversial reference to the decriminalization / official acceptance of christianity somewhere in the 1st or 3rd paragraph?

It might also be reasonable not to mention complex issues involving religion or religious persecution in such a short article. --Mathsci 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tatarstan

Is Tatarstan in Europe or Asia ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.3 (talk • contribs).

It's in Europe. See Tatarstan.--Húsönd 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkic languages

This is the page on Europe, so I've removed all non-European areas where Turkic languages are spoken. This corresponds to the pattern of other language, there are more than fifty countries outside Europe where a Germanic or a Romance language is the main language, but those countries aren't listed here either. I also removed some countries where the number of Turkic speakers is extremely low. There might be speakers of Turkic languages in Bosnia and in Romania, but not in the sense that there are any areas where Turkic languages are spoken in the way they are in Moldova, Macedonia or Greece. Speakers of many different languages live in almost every country in the world, but I'm again following the pattern of other language groups where very small groups aren't noted. Neither Italy nor Austria are listed as countries with Slavic speakers although there are Slavic majority areas in both countries. Finally, Kosovo is not yet a country and should not be listed as such in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. JdeJ 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone please edit the part about Cyprus. Turkish is an official language( with equal weight and status) as the Greek language in the Republic of Cyprus. If someone bothers looking up the 1960 constitution then one may see for themself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.17.48 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia - a continent ? - differences, re: current edit war.

There seems to be some debate between editors to the page as to whether Australia is a continent. My experience is that 30 years ago it was considered to be such, at least in the view of lay-men. It seems currently to have been replaced by the concept of Australasia.
Given that the bulk of Australasia is still Australia, could the disputed reference to Australia being the smallest continent be replaced by one refering to Australasia (assuming the statement to still be true, of course)?
What do you think?
I would change it straight away, but I don't really wan't to make a two-sided edit war into a three-sided one !
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that since there is an article Australia (continent) which does not seem to have been put up for deletion, there is not really a debate about this point. Mathsci 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reply.
Can't fault it.
Everyone happy, or should we also look at amending the Australia (continent) article?
Australasia also includes New Zealand, and as no other continent is named after a sovereign nation, the change to Australasia may have been a political thing.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 06:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Australia (continent) article lists Australasia as a synonym of Australia (continent) FWOW. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/ is the website of the Australasia edition of the Independent newspaper - the 4th most read quality daily newspaper in Great Britain, so the term Australasia does have some contemporary "serious" usage. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slavic speaking population in Northern Greece

I've removed the statement that Slavic speaking population in northern Greece is ethnically Macedonian (Slavic, not Greek). It's a question that has never been discussed between Macedonia and Bulgaria. Some people there determinate themselves as Bulgarian from the Macedonia geographic region which covers Macedonia, parts of Greece, parts of Bulgaria and parts of Serbia. However I will not put that those people are from Bulgarian descent, because it could be considered as subjective position and it could provoke useless debates in Wikipedia. It would be best if some slavic speakers from Voden (Greek: Edessa) tell us to which ethnicity they belong.--SOMNIVM 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Poland the centre of Europe? or not?

I notice that someone has inserted the claim that the centre of Europe is in Poland.
I wonder on what basis this conclusion was reached?
Was it Half way between, say, the Azores and the Urals, and halfway between Sardinia and Nordkap (Top of Norway)?
Or was it on a weighted land mass basis?
Or was it on a weighted population basis
Or some other measure
Anyone got any sources which might shed light on it?
Or is it just a it of Nationalism, and I should delete the claim?
What do you all think?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement by User:149.156.56.50 (an IP in Krakow) was not justified and has been removed, along with their other interesting WP:POV contributions. In fact the actual centre of Europe is in a small grotto in Ireland, inhabited by leprechauns. --Mathsci 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To speak seriously, the actual center of Europe is in Belarus by the way.--Certh (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

celtic nations, or "so-called" celtic nations

A user has recently dropped "so called".
What do you all think?
"So-called", because it distinguishes them from the othe lands historically occupied by the celts on their westward migration?
"So-called" because of the mixing of the celtic DNA with that of other groups (the vikings spring to mind)in at least some (and perhaps many) inhabitants of those areas?
or just an odd figure of speech that doesn't mean much one way or the other?
Views, anyone?
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

History

this history are very awesome and very timimg to go to the place so enjoy this place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.157.98 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenia does not belong to the middle east. however i do not see it included in Europe or Russia or Asia. Has Armenia been erased of the map or out of the article. Armenia was the first Christian country established, while everyone else was still praying to rain gods and zeuz and cats. Please consider Armenia and make the region that it belongs to clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.46 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamism in France

France has a practising muslim population of 4% or more. Reference to this information has been removed three times by User:Energyfreezer from the section on religions. I am opening this section on the talk page so that he can explain to the other editors (a) why he believes this not to be the case; (b) which sources he is using to justify his claims. Please restore France to the list of countries with significant muslim populations. User:Energyfreezer is editing disruptively. --Mathsci 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page User:Energyfreezer wrote:

France has been anything but muslim since the ice age or so, and just because a bunch of immigrants with islamic beliefs settle there recently, doesn't mean that it has a "significant" muslim population.

What can the phrase "bunch of immigrants" possibly mean, unless it is a form of racism? What about the pieds noirs? Mathsci 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the BBC country by country guide to Muslim populations in European countries. There the muslim population of France is estimated at between 8 and 9.6%, between 5 and 6 million. No further interpretation is necessary. Please could User:Energyfreezer not repeat the following disruptive behaviour here: [5][6] [7][8] [9][10] [11] Mathsci 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Population table

Could someone check this please? Georgia is wrong, and others may be also. --Mrg3105 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Where applicable, the figures included are those for the European portions of countries only -- Georgia, for example, has territory in both Europe and Asia, hence the lower number. However, I do believe the population figures should be updated, if possible -- perhaps from here? Quizimodo (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

20th century history

The section on 20th century history, as well as previous entries, has been written from one source - a National Geographic picture book - by User:Hemlock Martinis. Hemlock's unscholarly approach to writing on history has already resulted in a series of howlers and misconceptions. His unwillingness to consult more than one source has made Hemlock a troublesome and contentious editor. His schoolboy account of 20th century history is inaccurate. One of the main purposes of the history section, particular 20C history, is to explain the current division of Europe into countries. His statements about the Cold War are ill-informed and misleading; they contradict other wikipedia articles. This section is urgently in need of rewriting. --Mathsci 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathsci's been helpful in adding additional sources to the material and pointing out simple mistakes, both of which I appreciate. I thank him for his assistance in improving this vital article. However, I grow weary of his continual aggressive ad hominem attacks on my talk page and now here. He's repeatedly mischaracterized me and now is misrepresenting my source. The best I can do now is ignore him unless he decides to behave more positively. --Hemlock Martinis 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You should not be using ONE SOURCE. There has been no ad hominem attack: you have made a series of slips, undoubtedly as a result of using one source. That is not the way to write an encyclopedia. You have also avoided discussing your edits on this page, even though I have requested this several times. Again that is not an ad hominem attack; it is the normal method of wikipedia editing.

I appreciate your contributions in the previous sections, which have - after several corrections - improved the history section considerably. Your division into sections, introducing the possibility of adding images, was an extremely good idea. But the 20th century section has major problems.

Some more detail:

• Russia/USSR stretches to Vladivostock. Is this part of Europe?
• "incredibly" destructive - this is not the kind of phrase expected in an encyclopedia
• "Through complicated series of treaties" - this is bad english
• bad wikilink to a disambiguation page - the correct reference is Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
• Serbian nationalist? Gavrilo Princip called himself a "Yugoslav Nationalist" and was born in Bosnia Herzegovina. He was a member of Young Bosnia.
• There were over 40 million military and civilian casualties according to the WP page on World War I. No attempt to check this discrepancy between the figure of 10-13 million claimed in the article has been made.
• "Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed completely" - oddly enough we still have the countries of Austria, Hungary and Turkey, so the word "completely" is inaccurate. Austria-Hungary presumably was a reference to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
• The Great Depression in Europe was not caused solely by events in the United States of America. It started earlier in some parts of Europe: the Great Depression in the United Kingdom and other European countries has also been explained by debts incurred from World War I. The cause-and-effect explanation of the Wall Street Crash has not been properly justified and contradicts statements in other WP articles.
• "anti-democratic" - is a meaningless phrase. The national socialist parties were elected: there were no military coups.
• What about General Franco in Spain and Oswald Moseley in the United Kingdom?
• What happened to the international crisis brought about by the annexation of Sudetenland?
• Europe's fall from pre-eminence started already at the beginning of the 20th century.
• The Cold War involved a détente between the Western Bloc (USA, Western Europe, Japan) and Eastern or Soviet Bloc countries: "rivalry" is unsourced and unjustified WP:POV. The description of Eastern bloc countries formed as a result of post-World War II division is not explained, but is highly relevant.
• In 1990-1991 there were various different events across eastern European countries and the USSR, including the fall of the Berlin Wall. What has been written is an inaccurate and misleading description. For the purposes of this article on Europe, it seems important to explain what happended to European countries rather than the USSR.
• "crumbling" is WP:POV. This section does not discuss the struggle for independence of European-ruled countries in Africa and Asia. The struggle for independence of the former colony of the United States of America is similarly not discussed in the previous history sections. Nor is the Norman Invasion.
• A more complete historical description of the European Union is required; what has been written here is completely inadequate for an article on Europe. If it is inadequately described in the one source document, other source documents should have been consulted.

Mathsci 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the phrase "The French rule of Europe" has been reintroduced. But the French did not rule all of Europe while Napoleon was emperor: there were the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar (he of course won in Austerlitz, commemorated tomorrow). Why not say the Napoleonic Empire? It is also not true that all European countries were affected by the Constitution of France. These generalizations and over-simplifications are easy to avoid by careful cross-checks with other sources. Mathsci 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the majority of your suggestions listed above and further expanded the 20th century section. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's a lot better. However you continue unashamedly to use ONE SOURCE. I don't think that is acceptable in an encyclopedia, particularly in articles on history.

The section is far too long with too much detail. It unbalances the section on history and the whole article on Europe; you have not managed to do a synthesis concentrating on Europe, while making appropriate reference to world history. This is the hardest period to write about, because it is so recent. Your book seems to take an American-centrist view of history. What is interesting for this article is what happened in Europe, which as an entity changed after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, politically and economically. You do not mention the separate liberation of Romania, Hungary, Czechia, etc, nor the war in former Yugoslavia, the problem renaming Macedonia, the inclusion of new eastern european member states in the EU, the formation of the Council of Europe, the problems with British entry into the EEC, etc. If your book does not treat this, you should have found others devoted to 20th century European history and used them. I would also be careful with the word superpower: Europe was not a superpower prior to 1991 and I don't know if Russia is now. It is unnecessary to use these terms, especially when they are ambiguous and could represent a point of view.

I have just been reading the book the Age of Extremes, 1914-1991, by the historian Eric Hobsbawm. Here for example one reads that the Great Slump or Depression was brought about by economic instabilities incurred by European debts from World War 1 - there was spiralling inflation in Germany and Russia in the mid-twenties - particularly debts due to the United States, which had decisively intervened in WWI and had subsequently pursued an isolationist economic policy. Hobsbawm writes that the Cold War was something of a Paper Tiger brought about by hysteria in America over the threat posed by communism; and that is why America received no support from its allies in Vietnam. Then of course, there are the wars in Iraq, which involved Europe. All this is very hard to write, if written at all; any way, whatever is written should be written much more briefly and with more than one reference. You also removed the flag and its caption on the Council of Europe: it appeared after a long period of consensus and is extremely relevant to the article. You are confusing your sysop buttons and usual editorial practice.

My suggestion is that, unless you are willing to consult a series of other references, you leave this section alone for a while and let other editors restore some kind of balance. Please enjoy your book in private now - more than enough of it appears in the article. Mathsci 04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you'd add other sources like you did in previous sections, but you've sunken back into an "armchair editor" position. It appears I will just have to do it myself. I didn't delete the flag image, I just removed it from the article - you're confusing a basic edit with sysop buttons, none of which I've used on this article. You seem to be contradicting yourself about the article length - first you tell me (with bold text even) that the section is "TOO LONG" and then you proceed to harangue me at length about all the things I've left out. You're just flat-out wrong about an American-centric POV. I plan to continue improving this article, with or without your pedantic and arrogantly condescending lectures. --Hemlock Martinis 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that: yesterday I ordered some English language history books here in France and they take time to arrive; it is much harder to summarise this part of history; and at the moment I am preparing material for an example in the article on Orbifolds. I think the page on History of Europe is quite helpful as a model, although abrupt at points. Kulturkampf, Bismarck, Garibaldi and Il Risorgimento are all mentioned there. To do this seriously takes time and the gathering of references.

You are now making ad hominem remarks. Please avoid using phrases like "armchair editor", "arrogantly condescending" and "harangue". I said far too long not TOO LONG. I said "remove" not delete. The sysop buttons did not refer to the image but to your non-consensus style of editing: the fact that you are now participating on this talk page is good.

Please remember no personal attacks; and also remember the purpose of this discussion page. You have not so far discussed specific content. On the other hand you continue to use just one source and refuse to justify yourself. I have ordered others and they take time to arrive. Please try to be more patient and assume good faith. Do not confuse the fact that I do not like the balance in what you have written with a personal attack. I have already said that other sections have benefited - after correction - from your initiatives. Please find other references, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Mathsci 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some preliminary rearranging and clarification, based on available references. The only remaining part where I think there is possibly too much detail is the section on the events of World War II which could be shortened. I am sorry if I overreacted to your edits: it is very hard to write a short summary of this period. (Il Risorgimento and Kulturkampf should probably be added at some stage to 19th century history, if you're interested.) Mathsci 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the preceding section on the unification of Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany together with a reference (checkable on google books or amazon.com). Mathsci 11:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I'd like to apologize for being a little aggressive with you in my response. I'll hold off on editing the history section until you have a chance to go over it with the new books you've ordered, then we can go from there. Again, my apologies. --Hemlock Martinis 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I did my latest and probably last edits - just slightly shortening what you wrote for World War II, leaving some detail to hidden wikilinks. I do have extra references, but here its seems unnecessary to add anything to those you have supplied. The main thing I have added is the initial alliance between Hitler and Stalin, which is quite relevant. Please feel free to adjust this as you wish. (I find this particular part of history - with all its after-effects touching us all in so many different ways - very hard to write about, but I hope the balance is OK now.) Cheers, Mathsci 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Kudos for adding the Soviet-German alliance and clearing out some of my over-wording. This section is easily the most difficult to sum up in so short a space but you've done a good job. Balance doesn't appear to be an issue, unless you can think of any issues we've missed for the 20th century - none immediately jump to mind here. Good work! --Hemlock Martinis 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jersey

On the 'Jersey' article, it says that it is not part of the European Union, so why has this article included it in Europe? Lee 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe and the European Union are two very, very different concepts. -- Jao 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some areas incorrect

The areas of countries from Central Asia and Western Asia are wrong (or at least disagree with the areas listed on each of those countries' pages by an order of magnitude). Someone with access to this page please change that. Wouldn't hurt to check the whole table for errors, though the rest of the 'area' figures seem OK. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The figures give the areas of these transcontinental countries that fall within Europe, as the attached notes state. Please read the table more carefully. Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If by reading the "table" you mean reading all the notes at the bottom of the page, then "ah, I see." Seems pretty confusing though, given the map immediately to the right of the table is different from the map linked to by "The countries in this table are categorised according to the scheme for geographic subregions." Maybe the explanation should be more visible and/or the link just mentioned more correct? How about a seperate collumn showing the total areas of countries not completely inside "Europe"? I just mention this because I came here looking for a table comparing the areas of the countries, and almost left thinking Turkey was much smaller than it really is... just think it would help disambiguate the section. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first two sentences in this section were intended to address your point. I agree that it could be a bit confusing. Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe Vs. Asia

I do not see why EUrope and Asia have to be two seperate continents. It makes no sense! They are conected together by land and water. Some of the cultures are the same in both continents. it is all so confusing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.162.225 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its more to with cultural differences than geographics ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.186.204 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can always propose that the articles on Europe and Asia be merged. Bonne chance, Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast consensus - academic, governmental and public - is that they're separate continents. We reflect that consensus. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If we were getting into the whole 'but they're connected by land and sea' business then one could easily say that Africa, Asia and Europe are all one continent because they are situated on one landmass. I think that the point mentioned above is valid, both continents are seperated by distinct cultural and religious differences. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As ever, stupid points. Culture does not follow geographic lines. You are insulting more than 4, 000, 000, 000 people by saying things like Syria has the same culture as Japan. Or that Norway has the same culture as Albania. There is no such thing as 'Asia'. And there is no such thing as 'Europe'. Can you even name me one single thing that the Norweigans and the Greeks, or the Tajiks and the Japanese share in common, to bring them under such a sweeping and extremist label as 'Europe' or 'Asia'? The whole thing is a political illusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the current ongoing position, and the lack of identification, looks like a sockpuppet to me. Perhaps best to ignore. Mariya - x ---Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom and German Economy

I think that it should be mentioned that the economies of the United Kingdom and Germany frequently swap positions as the biggest economies in Europe, suggesting that both are equally powerful, which is the case. The current wording suggests otherwise.. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Will change that. Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you two talking about? The German economy is for a very long time, starting way before this country reunificated, the largest EU economy. Not at all are they frequently swapping this leadership position with the UK. Did you perhaps refer to France and the UK swapping their respective positions? Tomeasy (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry see what you mean. And actually the UK and France haven't swapped for a long before this year, the Uk is almost always larger. Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Autonomies of European countries

Talking about Europe in the political sense means referring to the political units of which Europe is comprised. The European countries are sometimes no simple political entities but include autonomies of various degrees, the inclusion of which in such an article about Europe is essential. It is true some of these autonomies are geographically not in Europe (as is actually true of some non-autonomous European territories as well like Lampedusa in Italy or Madeira in Portugal), but the inhabitants of these territories enjoy special relations with Europe with so many European conventions including them (e.g. they are entitled to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights) that I find it necessary to include this list here, which by the way is not redundant since it is found nowhere else on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I, and apparently others, disagree: this is an excessive list which adds little value to the article and should not be included. In your prior edit comment, you assert "People living in these territories hold a European passport" -- actually, no: they hold EU passports, and the EU is not synonymous with Europe (e.g., Switzerland). Your comment, thus, reveals something very different. This is an article about the continent of Europe, not the EU and or those territories not in Europe that may or may not have affiliation with it -- otherwise, why don't we include Canada? Alternatively, can you produce a reputable list of European constituents that harks of yours?

Anyhow, if you feel strongly about including such a list, create a new article and link to it from this one. Also note that you are at risk of violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule, and you will be reported if you violate it and continue to make edits against consensus. Quizimodo (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and answering me. This article is about Europe in general, not only on its geography but on its history, culture, politics and so on. Talking about European countries you cannot deny the fact that some citizens of these countries (regardless of whether or not they are EU citizens) live in autonomous areas some of which are outside Europe, but are still citiziens of a European country and hence covered by some European laws: the Bologna Process, coventions of the Council of Europe and so on. They are therefore fundamentally related to Europe in a very different sense than Canada. This is also true for territories not part of the EU at all (like some autonomies of Russia). Being geographically strict about the inclusion/disjunction of some territory in relation to Europe is certainly relevant if you discuss European geography, not if you discuss its politics. As your warning is relevant (although it is only and another editor against my view, not a general concensus as you said) I'll follow your advice although I would still find it better if such a list were accessible to all interested in European politics, looking for a general article about Europe. It is also important to mention these autonomies in this context in order to give them some internet representation which is usually missing in such general discussions where only big nationalities, strong enough to have gained independence in the past, get coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are far too many things about Europe to include in this one summary article: for example, perhaps we should add reams more of text concerning centuries of Europe's history? That would definitely be more deserving than this (IMO) inchoate list of territories which has little purpose. I cite Canada because it also has strong European underpinnings: after all, its official languages are English and French, is a Commonwealth realm and was a British dominion, and it did not acquire its own bill of rights until 1982. Some Aboriginal Canadians still assert last resort to the British Privy Council regarding land claims and self-government issues. So, in other words, what criteria is your list based on?

As for consensus: actually, two other editors have removed your list, so there does not appear to be a consensus supporting its inclusion here. Again, perhaps create a germane article and add to it, and add appropriate links. In any event, I have reported your transgression -- if you self-revert the list, I will retract the report. Quizimodo (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my criteria are pretty clear. Canada is an independent country. I agree Canada shows some special links to the UK which is a European country, but Canadian nationals are normally in no possession of a European passport (a passport of a European country). Neither are they part to any European convention. On the contrary, Saint Pierre and Miquelon near Canada (which are undisputably located in America) whose citizens are French nationals who are entitle to vote for the French presidency. Many French laws as well as some EU laws apply to them. They are entitled to move to Metropolitan France without the need for a visa. France represents them at the European National Bank and at the Council of Europe and they are regarded as Europeans by the Eurpean Court of Human Rights - all of this in complete contrary to a country like Canada. As to redunancy - I found this list nowhere else on Wikipedia. As to relevance - I think this list is politically as relevant to Europe as the list of countries in Europe. These autonomies are either in Europe geographically or belong to a European country, hence European politically. This is pretty straight forward. I agree it is important to distinguish those territories which belong to Europe politically but are somewhere else geographically, but I made this distinction clear enough I think. As to accuracy - I included all and only autonomous territories of European countries exluding the uninhabited territories of France, Denmark and UK - which are of marginal significance in such a list I think. Otherwise, I included all autonomies recognized by the countries themselves and defined so by their laws. The only exceptions as I stressed at the introduction are Northern Cyprus and Transnistria, both de facto independent, though not recognized by other countries (apart from Turkey for Northern Cyprus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence says it all: your criteria are not ones which I nor various others share. This list is of little relevance, and doesn't pertain to Europe. There may be a reason why such a list doesn't exist in Wikipedia: it is an original one, without cited basis. I previously suggested that you create such a list and link to it from this article; however, given the above, such an action may be met with a call to delete it if it isn't enhanced or reputably sourced. Quizimodo (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Autonomous areas and dependencies compromising quality of this article

This list that keeps being inserted should not be in the article for quite a few reasons. First, it's unnecessarily cluttering this long article with information that is already covered in detail on many other articles such as List of autonomous areas by country. Second, the list is quite inaccurate. Just to mention a few inaccuracies: Serbia is lacking Vojvodina; Portugal isn't even listed despite its two autonomous regions; The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska are neither considered autonomous regions nor dependencies; "Åland" is written with an "Å"; Spain's mentioned autonomous communities may have a somewhat higher level of autonomy than the others, but all still belong to the same subdivision group so they shouldn't be there; Azerbaijan has Nakhichevan as an autonomous region, not Nagorno-Karabakh; etc (I could go on forever, really). List is definitely inappropriate and so shall be removed as redundant and inaccurate research. Húsönd 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly -- see prior section. Quizimodo (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't notice the above section apparently. Húsönd 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion does not justify unilateral blanking. How can we discuss on something you made disappear? In my opinion the fact that you find dispersed information in other article does not preclude to have a synthesis somewhere, and it seems to me that this article is the most relevant place. And how to correct inaccuracy if everything is blanked ? That section has to be reinstated first, then we have a basis for serious discussion. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You may check the history and preview an earlier version of the article in order to see the list. Húsönd 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor answer, try better. Tell me how readers who do not see the list because you blanked it will come to discuss about it? So, please reinstate that list. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Better answer? Try below, keywords: "original research" and "flaws". Húsönd 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, now try "encyclopedia". Also, I always thought that in WP we were in a cooperative mode, thus, if you saw some flaws, the obvious thing would have been - I will use keywords - to "correct" them thanks to your expertise instead of "blanking" massively a full informative section. Another thing is about original research, I don't see how it applies here as you said yourself that those items are covered in other articles. In what those who made a list of them (btw, I don't know them, so much for the stockpuppetry rumor by Quizimodo) did something original? So again, please reinstate that section, that I found very informative, thanksfully with all corrections and precisions that you think would help readers. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reinstating it, me and another editor have already explained why should it not be on the article. Original research applies here as it's obvious that the list was an incomplete, inaccurate research about autonomous regions and dependencies of European countries. I should note that "inaccurate" and "informative" aren't good friends (particularly on an encyclopedia). Nonetheless, you are right that the section could be corrected instead of simply removed, but I don't see any advantages for this article brought by the inclusion of an accurate list of autonomous regions. Articles are not supposed to have all conceivable information that is slightly pertinent to them, that's why we split big articles. The autonomous regions are thoroughly described in many other articles, the list would just clutter this one. It's like adding info on the presidents of all European states, population, area, GDP, etc.. All covered elsewhere. Húsönd 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean you are going to start a specific article? Good idea as I don't know any that assemble all those interesting information, which are quite dispersed. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See List of autonomous areas by country. All the info on the removed list is there, except that it's accurate and free of POV. Húsönd 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that article has a different approach, is much less informative and does not refer to Europe. Is Europe a singularity that does not fit WP correctness ? That would be POV. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1)I would also add that there is a big difference between including information about GDP, population, current presidents ect. (which, by the way, I would find relevant and useful in this article) to including the list we are discussing: firstly, some people do not know exactly how areas relevant to Europe are interrelated and will not know where to look for. This makes a difference compared to all other data you mentioned which all readers can retrieve easily by looking them up under the specific country they are interested at. Of course, this is indeed possible by looking up either the relevant subdivision of a specific country or under the name of the autonomy itself, but this is a much more complicated procedure since not everyone knows what belongs where.Secondly, as I already elaborated before, history, population ect. normally apply to a certain country and the country entries are made available through the list of countries. This is again fundamentally different from the list I suggest because for the autonomies and dependencies no such entry is made available in this article.

2)I agree there's a basic problem in an encylopedia not written by experts, but that's what Wikipedia is all about. Again, I admit there are inaccuracies in the list, but such imperfections should be tolerated and seen as a basis for improvement, not as a reason for blanking. Only in this way, can the encyclopaedia grow and flourish. The aforementioned list of autonomies is also incomplete (e.g. the Sami Domicile Area is not mentioned under Finland although it is a recognized autonomy there). Should I delete the entire article due to this? This doesn't seem to be a productive way to go about things. This is even true for traditional encyclopaedias edited by experts since they can never reach perfection either.

3)I do not argue about definitions because this is doomed to bear no fruit. When I refer to "politically European" it may not be a well established term, but neither is it meant as such (or for that matter, as a product of an original research). As said before, I simply mean those civilians of European countries living outside of Europe (excluding emmigrents of course). These are nationals of European counrties, hence European (but only in the political sense). I can't see what might be controversial about that. There's nothing requiring interpretation here. The European countries themselves relate to these people as their nationals.

4)As specified by Pgreenpinch before, if the list is based on other articles in Wikipedia it isn't much of an original research anyway, but only another way of grouping things together. The appropriate questions should be whether this list is coherent, relevant and accurate (my answer to the first two questions is yes, to the third one no - but this can be improved).

5)As to the innaccuracies Husond pointed out in his contribution - I accept the corrections for Portugal and Serbia. The spelling of Aland requires a sign I don't have on my computer, but this spelling is also accepted by Wikipedia itself since many users don't know how to find the relevant sign. I agree there are problems regarding the political units of Spain and Bosnia. As said, the national regions in Spain enjoy a higher level of autonomy than the others, what might justify specifying them apart from the rest. This is at least worth discussing. Republika Srpska is certainly an autonomy (ansering the definition given in Wikipedia). Of course, you can argue the definition I apply isn't right, but this brings nothing. It would be helpful to discuss whether this is the best definition to serve us dealing with the objects we speak about. Nagorno-Karabach is included in Wikipedia as an autonomous area. Footnotes may prove helpful in such (partially controversial) cases as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAD213.47.60.134 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are inaccuracies, but also agree it is a reason to correct them, not to remove the section entirely. It might be a good idea to add brief information as to the legal status of the listed areas, as well as the current population. Notwithstanding inaccuracies, I do think a list of all areas whose inhabitants are nationals of a European country should be at least mentioned in an article discussing Europe (again in the political sense), not only those either residing in Europe, or those who happen to have acquired independence in the course of history. A (better and more comprehensive) list of autonomies somewhere else on Wikipedia is not specific to Europe, hence lacking when it comes to describing Europe. One could also add a short elaboration as to how these various autonomies (as well as dependencies) are politically considered European to a certain extent at least. As to the criteria of inclusion, such criteria are always decided subjectively. It is important though to make them convincingly meaningful and relevant on the one hand (which is one reason to discuss the list), and salient to the reader on the other hand (which may be a reason to change the format, add relevant information, ect.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All about autonomies, territories and dependencies is already thoroughly covered in the articles about those regions, countries that they belong to, lists of autonomous regions, subdivisions, etc. And there's no such thing as "politically European" for autonomous regions and dependencies located in other continents. In fact, there's no such thing as "politically European" in the first place. You see, this is unnecessary original research with evident flaws. Naturally it is not material for this article. Húsönd 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In response briefly to supporters of this list: actually, Europe is a singularity that, with cited definitions, fits WP 'correctness' -- a number of those definitions are here, another here. Can you point us to one reputable source which includes these autonomous territories in its definition of the European continent? (And, by that, I don't mean the EU, Council of Europe, et al, which are not the same as Europe ... just as North America is not NAFTA, America is not the OAS, etc.) Regardless, this list is excessive and original, and in its prior or recent incarnation doesn't belong in this article as such. Quizimodo (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Noone claims the EU or Council of Europe are synonimous to Europe. Noone is claiming that Greenland is in Europe (or for that sake Cyprus). The difinitions supplied above are all geographic. If Europe is only referred to in a geographic sense then there's no reason to include the list of European countries at all. If you reason to include a certain territory is its complete inclusion in Europe you confuse geography with politics/history. If France is defined as a European country (as it normally is) then all its nationals should be mentioned including those residing outside Europe. Otherwise, you should stress that you don't refer to the entire country but only to a part of it, something I don't find of great importance when discussing political affiliations. That no source includes the list is no reason to avoid it here. The only question we are propmtly discussing is whether the list makes sense here and how to edit it if it does. Whether others found it suitable to include such a list in this context is actually irrelevant. AAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you claimed this in one of your prior edit summaries, when indicating that said individuals had European passports, which of course is incorrect: they have EU passports. And please note that some sources do include Cyprus in Europe (perhaps because it is in the EU), but I digress.

Anyhow, '[t]hat no source includes the list' is precisely the reason why it doesn't belong here: since it is original research, by your own admission, it will be removed on that basis alone. As the article indicates upfront, this article is about the European continent (subcontinent, peninsula), not about what some believe it to be beyond those notions which are reputably sourced. Quizimodo (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I don't understand Quizimodo remark and I think 213XXX has a point. Yes, there are conventional definitions of Europe, which by the way is not a real continent but a subcontinent. To define it as a continent, as commonly done, including by international organizations is quite a political aspect, so why deny it?. Another thing, I'm sure readers (including me) would be interested to have the same list for other continents or subcontinents, whatever their political ties.

Nothing is being denied, but you nor the IP have proven why this inchoate, incomplete, original list should be included here. Quizimodo (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read my proposal below that answers all that. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did: if you choose to create a new article with list, that's your prerogative. I'll comment again at that point. But, for now, this fuzzy, original list will not be placed in this article.

As well, your reckoning of vandalism is malformed and rather different from the established reckoning. So, if you wish to edit in a 'cooperative' manner and get buy-in, comment more judiciously. Quizimodo (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don'tfind really judicious to mutilate an article and considering it is not vandalism and to criticize a section and doing nothing to improve it. Sorry if I find that not really cooperative. What I never saw was any attempt by you to bring a solution to satisfy readers who deserve information. Hope you are going to reconsider, for the sake of the encyclopedia. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I previously suggested a number of ways of moving forward: unfortunately, despite discussion, NO sources have been provided to justify including this list. Reasons provided since then have not been compelling. So, if you or others can't or won't provide sources in a co-operative manner -- as requested and required, for our collective scrutiny and for the sake of the encyclopedia -- and continue to 'mutilate' the article, any such content will be removed. That's it. Quizimodo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are an expert in geography, and I have respect for experts, but you still don't do anything to show you can bring information on the topic for the benefit of readers, only taking refuge behind a "collective scrutiny". Are you sure this is positive? Would not your contribution make things progress more, and be more appreciated, than your "scrutiny" ? Really, I don't understand! --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Now let us get practical, and let us find a positive solution, not a destructive one like blanking, which I consider vandalism as it does not correct and improve anything but suppress information for fuzzy reasons (whence my wondering about some political correctness behind them). Therefore do we:

• move this list to another article ? With corrections, here we need the experts that took part in that discussion, hope we can count that they take now a more positive approach.
• or make it a specific one. Why not, that might give room for more precisions.
• or keep it in the place that seems to me the most appropriate at the moment - but I'm flexible - the Europe article ?

Hoping for a wikipedian cooperative attitude on that matter.

--Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to refer you all to what I newly wrote above (five paragraphs) in response to Husond. AAD

*Sigh* Blanking a section is not destructive (and even less it is vandalism) as long as the content is being removed for well justified reasons, which it was. We don't need to "move" the list to another article because any accurate content it had (and there wasn't much of that) is already covered elsewhere in lists created by users with expertise in European administrative divisions, autonomies, dependencies, etc. As for 213.47.60.134's paragraphs above:

• 1)The fact that you would find relevant the inclusion of rather absurd examples I gave - GDP, population, current presidents - reveals that you do not quite understand the notion of the size articles are meant to have. We could write thousands of pages of material related to Europe, and yet it would be absurd for that massive content to be included in this article altogether. For extensive subjects such as "Europe", we refrain from providing lengthy sections or details. Instead, we create other articles about those sub-subjects.
• 2)Wikipedia is written by experts as it is by non-experts. You are most welcome to make any changes you believe would benefit the project, but when users with expertise in the matter review those changes you must understand that your changes may not be deemed fit sometimes. Have the Sami Domicile Area you mentioned, for instance. It's not an autonomous region, it just has some degree of autonomy on certain matters (which is very different than being an actual autonomous region). By inserting a list with material that is not correct, you must expect other users to remove it.
• 3)This article is about Europe as a continent. Even Cyprus (a country that belongs to the E.U. and whose people are considered European) was left out because it's geographically located in Asia. Broadening the scope of this article out of its primary geographical space is stepping outside the subject itself and therefore it's not appropriate.
• 4)The list was not coherent, not relevant (to this article), and we can all agree that it was not accurate.
• 5) "Å" can be written with any keyboard, you will find that letter at the bottom of the page every time you edit an article (there's a section with diacritics and special characters). This "might justify" inclusion of those particular Spanish autonomous communities is just your point of view. As was most of the list. And again, Republika Srpska has autonomy, but it's not an autonomous region of a country. Etc. You see, you are elaborating a list about a concept that you need to learn more about. Not appropriate for inclusion. Not even appropriate for discussion, as for discussing something you are expected to know about it beforehand. Húsönd 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but again I don't see any will to cooperate in your observations. No attempt to improve things, only elimination. Just a symptom of a more general cancer that has been progressively striking wikipedia and making it lose its initial cooperative goals. I find this immensely sad and negative. This might be subjective from me, but what is objective is that I don't see how the encyclopedia will be seen relevant by future readers, who will expect something better than a repetition of formal courses by a nucleus of territory holders, without looking at the world as it exists. No need to answer, You can close the door with a "sigh" if you are not interested. I will not persist, the test is now done. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I sighed not because I think that what you say deserves any kind of contempt, but simply because I'm not fond of repeating my arguments over and over again. You are more than welcome to present your opinions, I'm not bothered by them. But I think you are wrong both in your arguments and in your apparent frustration. Húsönd 13:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, who is right and who is wrong, and more important the future of WP, will depend whether it keeps attracting contributors and readers. I'm just pessimistic. Things are moving fast on the Internet. So long, it was a pleasure. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plans to address declining fertility

Hello, I am looking for information on what government or private projects are doing to counter the declining fertility in the continent, if there are any efforts like this at all. — Adriaan (T★C) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not a problem in the UK. Population rising at a fairly rapid rate for an long-established, developed country. Caused by a mixture of increasing lifespan, and net inward migration - most recently from Eastern Europe (notably Poland).--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

The article is unclear on the inclusion of Turkey. Currently Turkey has applied for admission into the European Union, and the article should reflect at least one sentence regarding this. NotNe1Normal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how it's unclear, see footnote n for example. Turkey is generally considered to be in both Europe and Asia, and its membership or non-membership in the European Union won't change this (there are lots of parts of Europe not in the EU, and several parts of the EU not in Europe). -- Jao (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Add link to Manx Language Please

Can someone add a link to the Manx language in the paragraph about European languages. Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Breton have links so Manx should too. (Manx language). Also why is this page protected? Protection should only be used for highly sensitive articles and only for a short time. Locking articles is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 213.230.130.56 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

link fix to Neanderthals also. --Harjk talk 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

I just reverted the inclusion of Kosovo. Kosovo's declaration of independence is not crucial, international recognition is. Areas such as Transnistria and Northern Cyprys have declared independence years ago without being recognised. It is very likely that Kosovo will soon gain international recognition and Wikipedia should reflect it once that happens. To date, no other country has yet recognised it so let's keep our heads cool for a few days and avoid an edit war. JdeJ (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are not right. I think Kosovo is a unique case, which cannot be compared to any other instance in history. Because the Kosovo's independence was backed by many countries, as well as the U.N. and the E.U., it should immediately be reflected on the map!--DataOpen (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As the EU is currently dicussing this matter (as at 18 Feb o8) it would be wrong to say that Kosovo's independence has been backed by them. I think the UN position is likewise. Perhaps you have some FACTS to back your POV--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As at Noon on 18 Feb 08, The BBC is reporting that Cyprus, Greece, Romania and Spain from the EU meeting are currently not ready to recognise Kosovo, and in the UN that Russia (and of course Serbia) are opposed to Kosovan independence, whilst China has "deep concern" (it is in quotes on the BBC site too!. So you statement about EU and UN recognition is demonstrably false, and I suggest you withdraw it.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see from DataOpen's page that he/she could hardly be described as a disinterested neutral. He/she is open on his/her User Page about his/her motives - that is to be commended. So many move with deceit these days. However, to say that Kosova has been returned to Albania is something of an overstatement, don't you think, and only serves to fuel Serb nationalism (I am not a Serb by the way - can't speak the language, never been there - can't speak Russian either)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep that Russian propaganda away from Wikipedia, JdeJ. If you have Isle of Man and Jersey on the list then you could have other such recognized and only recognized territories. However, Kosova has been added as a country as its recognition will follow soon. Thank you DataOpen.--Getoar (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jersey and the Isle of Man don't have armies (AFAIK, having visited Jersey, but not the IOM). you want Kosovo to not have an army?. Jersey has its own money - does Kosovo? The money has the head of another country on it (yep, the Queen of England), but it has a different design apart from that. Jersey still uses Jersey 1 pound notes (paper money) while in the UK they were replaced by coins years ago. North Cyprus declared itself independent a long time ago (AFAIK), but as only one other country (Turkey) recognises it, it isn't on the Wikipedia list.
So-
Does kosovo have its own army, or it it protected by another country?
Does it have its own money?
Is it formally recognised by any other recognised country? (OK, so ignore that one - time has passed us by, whatever the overall rights and wrongs of the situation)
Does any other country claim that Jersey and IOM are an integral part of their sovereign territory i.e. claim sovereign territorial rights.
Please discuss these issues before reverting again
Be lucky
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, IF international recognition subsequently follows, how do you feel about the serb-majority districts forming yet another "independent" country. Unless there are significant economic benefits to staying as part of a PROJECTED Kosovan state, why would they not want to leave (politically, not geographically), and either be independent, or merge with Serbia?
You (Getoar) may not want to live in Serbia, but why would Serbs want to leave (politically) Serbia? (which is what the unilateral Kosovan action implies). What about the Serb-dominated bits of Serbia-in-Kosova that are not next to Serbia? Surely on your logic they should be allowed to declare their own several independence too? Then as independent states (albeit mini-states) they can vote to integrate their territories to become part of a "Greater Serbia" with scattered bits in other PROJECTED countries. The legal situation would be a nightmare, for a start. Then if there were are cross-border riots by the surrounding areas, would not the Serbian army be entitled under international law to defend its (newly-adjusted) territory. And what if elements of the Serbian army were "over-enthusiastic" in that protection. Hmm. I think we have been here before. What say you? --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'm perfectly entitled to having opinions witout you directing personal attacks at me. Funny enough, as it's not too long since I was accused by some Russian nationalits of being anti-Russian. Nationalists of all colours seem very fond of playing the propaganda-accusation card. JdeJ (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment - LESS propaganda, MORE facts are needed.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo has now been recognised by many countries across the world including the USA, UK and France and will be recognised by Germany and Italy tomorrow - that is 4 of the 6 permanent security council members - China has declared a certain neutrality to the situation and Russia has come out against Kosovo, however due to the general acceptance of Kosovo by the international community, I think that it is right for Kosovo to be added to the list of Southern Europe countries. Hypergreg (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hypergreg. Always nice to see a new member.
Beg pardon, but you seem confused whom the permanent members of the UN Security council are. Last time I looked there were 5 (not 6) - Germany and Italy not holding Permanent seats for clear historical reasons (even though Germany has probably the 3rd largest economy in the world - Japan, probably the 2nd largest, doesn't get a seat either - neither are nuclear powers either - I say probably because economists are not sure how big the Chinese economy is and are not agreed on which measure to count it).
According to Kofi Annan, the decisions of the Security Council ARE International Law. The current chap, Ban Ki-moon, AFAIK, hasn't said much about that issue yet. The last Security Council Resolution passed regarding the sovereignty of the Kosovo region of Serbia specifically said that the UN involvement in the area did not change Serbia's sovereignty of Kosovo. In the absence of a superceding Security Council Resolution, or an agreement of similar weight by an apropriate Commission (or similar) in the UN, or an international legal ruling of an equivalent wieght, I believe that you will agree me that the position in International Law is clear - Kosovo is part of Serbia (period).
The purpose of the UN, and modern International law is surely to prevent and/or reduce conflicts. One only has to look at the period between 1900 and 1945 to see the sort of mess that can occur in the Balkans (there are of course other periods you could choose, which would demonstrate the same point).
One might also look instructively at the case of Cyprus. If Kosovo has been returned to Albania as one contributor to this page has claimed on his user page, then would not the Serbs be justified in protecting the Serb population of the area by armed intervention (as was the stated case (i.e. protecting the Turkish Cypriot population from the pro-Greek Cypriots) of Turkey when invading Cyprus in the early 1970's)
The USA, with it's upcoming elections, surely has an eye on domestic politics, and distracting attention from the long-running and very expensive (that's the politest thing I can think of to say about it) wars it is participating in. A recognition of a breakaway majority Muslim region makes George Bush and the USA seem to be less anti-Muslim (a charge regularly levelled against the USA by certain governments and political groups when commenting on the last five years of US policy. Likewise the UK. The UK is also rather keen to annoy Russia in a minor way (recent relationships between the countries having deteriorated over spies, poisoning etc. etc.) France is also, I believe, playing to a domestic audience, as it has recently suffered from some level of inter-ethnic strife in the country.
To be honest, all that stuff about one country playing another off against a third is a lot of what was wrong with the Balkans in the 1900-1914 period - and look where that led!
But, to summarise, I believe I have demonstrated that International Law is currently clear in this case. If you (or another contributor) would like to argue otherwise (and show me where I am wrong), I would be very interested in your (or their) reply.
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan makes the listing of Asian countries with 23 international recognitions; Northern Cyprus doesn't make the list of European countries with only one. Nine is between 1 and 23, and who's to say how many is enough, but universal international recognition is not the standard that seems to have been applied on Wikipedia. 71.150.252.203 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Want to answer the International Law question - that only needs 5 (the right 5) - plus recognition in this case is already subject to an International Law outcome which says that Kosovo is not a separate country.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) And FWIW, Taiwan isn't AFAIK covered by a similar Security Council resolution - correct me if I am wrong.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake Mariya - for some reason, was thinking Italy was a permanent member for some reason and I fully know about the UK/Russia situation as I live in the UK, unfortunately I can only see that getting worse currently but I dont think that Kosovo is actually related to this current spat - Russia is clearly refusing to recognise Kosovo due to Chechnya as Spain is due to the Basque region. I think it is important at this moment for the EU to act as a 3rd party in these affairs as both Kosovo and Serbia wish to join the EU and as the EU has no common policy on the Kosovo question as yet. On the point of whether it should be recognised on the Europe page as a country, I think it should be due to the simple fact that a large number of countries particularly in Europe have recognised/stated intention to recognise Kosovo. As a different member suggested above - Taiwan has limited recognition but is included in the Asia list and although Taiwan is not Kosovo, I believe it sets a precident for wikipedia, when a country gains a significant level of recognition around the world, it should be added to wikipedia regardless of whether its declaration of independence does technically break the word of international law - many people argue that the USA, UK and others broke international law by going to war with Iraq however they are not facing trial in the Hague - international law can be and often is disregarded by nations. Other territories such as South Ossetia and TRNC have such little backing that it is valid for them not to be included with full sovereign nations. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Hypergreg (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the question of whther other countries have broken international law (re: Iraq)
1) Two wrongs don't make a right. If we are going to go down that line, then lets not bother paying for the UN and just go back to having wars to settle everything like we used to.
2) the question of Iraq re: International Law was never fully resolved. The USA, UK etc. said they had an continuing mandate from a earlier UN resolution (passed unanimously by the then 15 Security Council members) which had not been superceded. The question was whether this mandate applied or not - had the actions mentioned in it been completed or not, and whether there was a continuing authority for further action, and if so, for how long. Despite the propaganda from both the pro-war and anti-war camps, this has never been resolved. A new security council resolution covering the answer, or a suitably appointed UN committee, or a team of authorised international lawyers could resolve this. None of this has happened. Thus it is an open question.
The question of Kosovo, on the other hand, is not an open question. The most recent UN security council resolution dealing with the sovereignty specifically states that it is part of Serbia, and that the UN actions in Kosovo do not change this. Period. There is no debate.
If either a) the Security council issues another resolution
or b) a suitably appointed UN body/committee/commission issues a new instruction chnaging the international law
then the case changes.
Unilateral actions by countries are irrelevant in international law, as are unilateral recognitions.
Hope that clears it up.
If the Permanent UN Security Council members don't like Russia's (or China's) attitude, then they should'nt have agreed the resolution in the first place, should they! If a country makes a deal with another (which is what effectively happened when the resolution was passed), it is only reasonable for that agreement to be binding until superceded.
As a foot note, it a SIXTH member is appointed, it is likely to be India anyway, not Italy. The EU already has two seats, and that is more than any other area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that people can agree to a special section listing de-facto territories whose status is in dispute? This would presumably include Kosovo, and probably also Northern Cyprus, and perhaps the Bosnian Serb Republic. Richwales (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea!! Best not to use the phrase "de-facto" (and I am aware what it means), and then I am in agreement with you! The 'Bosnian Serb' thing is a good example, because they have to be a hot candidate for tit-for-tat independence, and it would be difficult for the USA, UK etc. not to recognise them (I think they are currently holding fire on this, as it would be seen to legitimise the Kosovo situation). North Cyprus is currently being dealt with as part of accession talks for the EU, by them and Turkey, but who knows how long it will take. Also covered by a UN resolution 35 years ago or so, but I don't know what it said, and I don't know if it has been updated

What about Cornwall? (only half-joking) - they have a flag and a proper language of their own and everything!
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I said "de facto" was to distinguish between regions controlled by a functioning sovereign government (albeit not universally recognized) on the one hand, and areas inhabited (possibly terrorized) by a liberation movement that has not in fact displaced the recognized sovereign government. Thus, I would want to include Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, and Republika Srpska, but not the Basque Country or Cornwall. Richwales (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So what soversign powers does the administration have in Kosovo that are not those of just a county council? Simailarly, the Republika Srpska ( as you call it).

Mariya--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I HATE EDIT WARS. They too often corrupt the consistency of the provided information, because the protagonists fail to foresee the impact of their rush edits. Just one example (out of many): The current issue is that many people think Kososvo has to be added to all lists immediately. (That's OK for me as it would be to wait and see). But when you add one country to a list of all European countries summarizing the area and the population of the whole continent, then you must sit down 2 minutes longer and subtract those numbers elsewhere, otherwise Europe will grow, which – and I think at least in this respect Serbians and Albanians can equally agree – is not the case. So please people, if you cannot hold back on reverting edits from your love-hate opponents take at least care of the implications of your edit. Tomeasy (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is more complicated than it seems at first glance: we can't take a population number for Kosovo, determined by one source at one point in time, and subtract it from a population number for Serbia, determined by another source at another point in time, and then call that the population of Serbia ex Kosovo, without having done original research. 71.150.252.203 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy of the approach you've outlined is some orders of magnitude larger than doing no correction at all! Actually the introduced error, as you've explained, will simply be in the range of errors that we are anyway dealing with all the time, especially this list. Tomeasy (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the links in Blank Europe Map created?

This question many not be very appropriate to the talk section. But I just wanted to know how the wiki links on the Blank Map of Europe is created. i.e When I see the blank map of europe (the second pic in europe page) I see there are links to different countries. But when I go to the edit page, I can't see them. Can someone tell me how to create/ change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisrec (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to definition of Europe

I have a few issues with the recent Europe edit, and I was hoping a contributor could clear things up for me.
1) the edit says that the eastern border of europe IS disputed, then it mentions a couple of sources 2000 or so years old. Would it not be fair to say that the border has been disputed in the past, rather than is disputed. I am not aware of a dispute over the Eastern border for a hundred years or so. If a 2000 year time scale is allowable for the present tense, then surely Italy can lay a claim to ownership of much of the Near East, etc. etc.
2)The point about europe being a political definition may be correct (links to the Roman, Byzantine, and Frankish, Saxon, and Swedish empires spring to mind (amongst others), but it isn't backed up with any references - it is therefore likely to be struck out for that reason in addition to any other.
3) The only source for europe and asia being contiguous (hope I spelled it right) seems to be a chinese map
a) From the chinese perspective perhaps "abroad" was "abroad" - additionally nowadays two types of maps exist, political and physical. How do you know that the Chinese map is not a political map - in which case the definition of continents is irrelevant. There is also AFAIK no evidence that the chinese actually visited europe (certainly not western europe) so the map would have been drawn on second-hand information

As a side note, you are correct about this; the Chinese visited the Black Sea but they only had second-hand information on Rome (and anything west). Heliades (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

b) The conclusions about europe being a western political invention do not seem to be supportable by the single piece of evidence you suggest.
Hope things can be cleared up
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see that the edit I referred to above has been reverted. After all, It was very short on references.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted it. A lot of WP:OR. We should of course always try to assume good faith, but the user you're thinking about seems to be operating from a vandalism-only account. His edit history consists of inserting complete nonsense in violation of WP:OR and of several severe cases of personal attacks. JdeJ (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith and had no business reverting my edit. As stated in the very first line of the 3rd paragraph of this article, "Europe is the birthplace of Western culture."...Europe as a continent is a WESTERN fallacy, a viewpoint that is foisted on the world by westerners. Eastern maps predating those of "europeans" do not show a divide in the continental mass between "Asia" and "Europe". The idea of a European 'continent' is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY under the heading of "Geology". If you want to have it a separate 'continent' for the rest of the article, fine, but don't belittle the science of geology by claiming that there are actually two continents in fact, when they only exist by convention.

4) Plate tectonics and similar geological thoeries seem to be a 20th century development. As the boundaries of europe had been established by then, plate techtonics would appear to be a "red herring" at best.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, report my edits. Let me know where you have reported them to so that I may respond to your irresponsible reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaq1qaz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong words. I rather thought that Europe as a political entity is an extension of the Charlemagne thing - so it is a bit before your Chinese map! Got any sources or is it just your POV (and thus inadmissable in Wikipedia)
Love to hear your comments on my points above, particularly the one about the Chinese map.
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Zaq1qaz, perhaps you don't understand how this works. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, it's an attempt at an encyclopedia. This carries several implications, one of which is the need for sources. Your edits have consisted of highly speculative theories of your own, violating several Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. Please read those policies, source your edits and discuss controversial changes on the talk page before doing them. JdeJ (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides many tools to address the lack of references, primary among them is the FACT tag. Note that at the very top of this discussion page is this statement: " A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article."

You still have not entered into a discussion of the possible benefits to the article of including my contributions. Yes, references are needed. But I think this situation could have been handled simply by inserting a request for citations and then adding a discussion header on this page to, you know, DISCUSS IT, before just deleting it out-of-hand.

You refuse to discuss the facts. What does Wikipedia call that?Zaq1qaz (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous WWI map Image:Europe_1914.png

The map with the caption "Military alliances in Europe, 1914" used in the history section is not completely correct. It shows Romania and Italy — both neutral in 1914 — as allies of the entente. However, both joined the entente during the war--Italy in 1915, Romania in 1916.

There are basically two options for us: (i) change the colors in the map or (ii) edit the caption and change the file name. Since the map is not a vector graphic I am unable to perform action (i), which I favor, because it appears more reasonable to show alliances at the beginning of a war, than at an arbitrary later time. Therefore, I am waiting if someone wants to take an initiative. Otherwise I will simply perform option (ii) in some days. If so, what would you prefer, to change the year 1914 into 1916 or into 1918? The latter would refer to the end of WWI and therefore would not be so arbitrary.

Btw, the map is used multiple times. I have also seen it on Serbia. So therefore it might be a good idea to work on the image itself. Tomeasy (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Would like the References for this primary statement (see below)

"Europe is the birthplace of Western culture. European nations played a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onwards, especially after the beginning of colonization. By the 17th and 18th centuries European nations controlled most of Africa, the Americas, and large portions of Asia."

Did Western Culture pre-date the concept of a "Europe", or was "Europe" a creation of "Western Culture".

"...predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onward..."? Really? References or reasoning? Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to post less personal opinions and more sources? You've been asked to do this umpteen times, but you keep on posting completely irrelevant material, complaining about western culture, writing long essays about why some Europeans are blue-eyed and other things with no relevance at all to the subject. You've been asked to provide sources to your claims on how to define a continent, nothing else. If you have them, start sourcing them. JdeJ (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted this, DAYS ago. Maybe you should read what other people are writing instead of keeping a closed mind.

"Thus the concept of remote peoples possibly more advanced than themselves has always been present to Europeans, and Europe (like the individual countries within Europe) has always been classified as one in a list of sibling regions, at best by its own efforts temporarily primus inter pares. Inseparable from the Europeans' comparative viewpoint has been the sense that their own achievements were without final validity, being always subject to overshadowing by known or unknown civilisations outside Europe. This constant relativisation, especially vis-á-vis the East where through most of history the real rivalry lay, produced a social space loaded with competitive instability, in strong contrast to the paternally centred Chinese world space."

It was within this geographic-conceptual schema, under the major headings of 'Asia' and 'Orient, East', that the European idea of China took shape. Long before there was more than one or two sentences' worth of knowledge (even fabulous) about China itself, the genus into which new information would be fitted was ready prepared in the European mind."

From

Andrew L. March:

The Myth of Asia

(New York: Preager, 1974), 23-43, 61-67

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/mythofasia.html

At least one other editor felt that the above was a good enough reference. If I was to feel that some tyrant editor wasn't going to just delete my contributions out-of-hand without consideration, I'd get more. So far, all I've experienced is closed-mindedness and assumptions of bad faith.

Also, I noticed you didn't provide the references I asked for. Am I the only editor required to provide sources and citations?Zaq1qaz (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If that quote in any way proves that Europe isn't a continenet, I'm afraid I fail to see it. Would you care to highlight where it says, or even implies, that Europe isn't a continent? And who are these other editors who agree with you that Europe isn't a continent? I haven't seen the, contribute to the disussion here. As for references of my own, supporting the idea of Europe being a continent, you'll find a long list of them in the article Continent.JdeJ (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I think Europe is a perfectly valid description, the bit about it having a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onward is perhaps a tad eurocentric, and although I have yet to agree with one editor on anything, I am tempted to support his desire for a reference to back this particular line.
As to the question of Did Western Culture pre-date the concept of a "Europe", or was "Europe" a creation of "Western Culture", I think that probably both are true: an option that some editors seem to not allow for. The source quoted above is also interesting and clearly biased, and should be viewed in the cultural context in which it was written, BUT that doesn't make it inappropriate. It is best countered with other sources (Isn't that the Wikipedia way?)
I do agree with another editor that the source does not seem to say that Europe isn't a Continent, however, and although the source MAY be useful in bringing additional balance to Europe article, I see no reason for altering the concept of Europe.
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about the quote, Mariya, but this is one of the cases where I would be tempted to argue that a claim is sure enough for it to be valid even without a specific source. Starting from the 16th century, European states colonised all of America, virtually all of Africa and more than half of Asia. From the 16th century, European languages (mainly Spanish, English, Portuguese and French) were established over an enormous area covering most of the world. From this period untill the 20th century, European empires ruled most of the world. Now, I'm not saying this was necessarily a good thing, we all known that the colonisation was a cruel thing at many times. But to say that Europe had a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onward is almost an understatement. With the exception of parts of the Middle East, Japan and China, Europe ruled the entire world during that time - including Central Asia that was conquered by Russia. Given all this, I think the statement is perfectly valid and not at all too eurocentric. JdeJ (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote is meant to point out that "Europe" is a continent ONLY from the POV of the West. Eastern portions of the Eurasian continent, the larger portion in both population and land area, did not view "Europe" as a continent.

Given the dodgy eastern border of the so-called "European" continent, I have to wonder how "covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) or 2% of the Earth's surface" was arrived at, what the source of that number is?

My original contribution did not affect the upper portions of the article where the word 'continent' was defined as being both a political as well as a physical description. My changes were only made regarding the physicality of "Europe" as a continent and the fact that in history, it was created out of a Western viewpoint that "Europeans" were different (or at least wanted to think of themselves as different) from the other residents of the Eurasian continent. It is all about viewpoint; this article is seriously skewed towards the western viewpoint.

If Europe is a continent, then why isn't the Middle East a continent? Why isn't there a "Latin" continent since there are "Latino's" who come from multiple countries just as "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners" do. You can define "Europe" as a continent because, like the Middle West of the U.S., it is an understood shorthand for a portion of a larger continental area and because, mistakenly, earlier people called it a continent. But seriously, do you really think it actually is a physically separate continent? Seriously?Zaq1qaz (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I seriously think you still don't understand. You keep asking for my view and keep giving your own views. Once and for all, your view is of no interest at all here. None whatsoever. Neither is mine. What matters is the established view, this is an encyclopedia and not a discussion forum. I don't know how many times I've pointed it out to you but you still don't seem to get it. And the quote doesn't support the view that Europe isn't a continent, it doesn't say so anywhere in the text. To be quite honest, you have wasted both your own time, other's time and space at this discussion board with complete nonsense. You might have misunderstood what Wikipedia is at first, but you've been told so many times already that it is NOT a discussion board to present our own theories. It's NOT a discussion board to give vague quotes and your own interpretations of them. It IS an encyclopedia. I will end this discussion now as everything of any relevance has been said. JdeJ (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If your view is so unimportant, as is mine apparently, then why not allow both views to be presented?

Why is the Western view of 'continent' formation the correct viewpoint? Which is the whole point.

Only in the eyes of the fearful romans cowering from the 'asian' barbarians was europe a continent. And as they tried with Galileo, just because they say so, doesn't make it so.

I notice there have been no references offered for the statements I quoted at the beginning of this section. Perhaps they should be deleted as well?Zaq1qaz (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

US independence

Could someone please write some more on US independence in the 18th and 19th Centuries section I have added a sentence but I very little on the subject. Thanks Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

European Borders

There is a BIG problem going on about whether Republic of Georgia and other neighboring countries should be included in Europe or not .As you know there is no official border between europe and Asia and there is a great number of unofficial versions .so you might think that it is LOGICAL to explain all of the versions that exist for today on that page.......... well sadly thats not what most editors think. they put one version there and every time I changed it, it went back to the previous version. now I am just wondering do these people think it is their personal page or what gives them the right to rely on several sources and ignore other ones that are not any less trust me. They should definately offer every version of where the border goes between the two continents instead of putting only one version and not even bothering to explain why, it is unacceptable. I contacted one of the editors and he/she said that he chose that version because he/she "thinks it is the most neutral one". I am sorry but what some users "think" should be completely irrelevant while making an article on the website which has an ambition to be Credible. they should include all of the versions or not include anything at all before there is an OFFICIAL border ! Council of Europe, the oldest organization in europe classifies country as european, country is in the middle of the NATO membership process (only european countries are eligible for it according to the North Atlantic Treaty) and they are not even mentioning why they left it out. Turkey is not the case because it was already amember of nato. cant they understand that page is not about the EU. its the entire europe as a whole and until the borders will be determined OFFICIALLY all of the versions should be included. they dont seem to understand my very logical arguments and even used some rude words in private messages.--Polscience (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just pick on one detail of your line of argumentation: country is in the middle of the NATO membership process (only european countries are eligible for it according to the North Atlantic Treaty). Are you actually aware of the fact that the USA and Canada are NATO members?

Besides that, I would agree with you that the issue of Georgia and its neighbors being Europe or not is a delicate one and not at all settled. However, I am afraid wikipedia will not settle it either, partly because opponents here tend to get very emotional when it comes to discuss these kinds of issues. Tomeasy (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

USA and candada were the founding members thats why. the charter says that Nato ENLARGMENT should not envolve any country other than the European ones --Polscience (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Misinformed Georgian POV pusher, caused a lot of trouble yesterday. Have spoken to him. Húsönd 13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure whether we should so easily disqualify this opinion. Myself, I take the stance that the European border in this regions is marked by the Caucasus, which leaves the referred countries out, except for a comparatively small fraction of Georgia. However, even though never having spoken to a Georgian, I have heard many times people referring to that country as European. I agree that this is a minority opinion and should be treated as such, but labeling it a Georgian POV does not seem fair to me. As I said I have heard this opinion from people who could not care less about Georgian sentiments. So, what arguments stand against giving this controversy and diversity in perception a side note. Tomeasy (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

to HUSOND : I am not trying to make anyone "LOOK" european and I think nothing is wrong with NON-european or asians etc.. If thats what you are trying to say I have to tell you that RACISM and discrimination on this website and anywhere else should not be tolerated and stop impying that Europeans are any better than others. I really don't have a need to make someone "LOOK" like anything and you should really modify your supercilious tone.. Its just that those countries have to be either in europe or asia. IF I DID NOT see them there AT ALL I would never move anything in european section. but as it was there as in western asia, I thought it was wrong because as YOU already said the borders are not official and we dont know yet. so if you DONT KNOW yet the exact location why is it in western asia ? is it like a waiting room or what ? it means you know it , otherwise why would you put it there. if you will OMIT it completely I really would not care, it either has to be there or it does not have to be there at all. once again, you agreed with me that the borders are not officially define yes ? did you say that ? OK. thats what I am saying. then why is it in western asian category if borders are not defined ? put it somewhere else, separate it completely and show a map which does not show only one particular version of it. the one before was showing exactly ONE (biased) version and I am happy that I did not see it lately. In your previous PRIVATE letter there was clear message conveyed that was implying on some one trying to make someone "look" like something else because they are kind of LESS the way they are. I have to call on you to strongly REFRAIN from that type of comment anytime in the future..--Polscience (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop copy-pasting your comments and sending them to me via e-mail. And please stop yelling and threatening, it's useless and won't help your case. You have already been advised to read some important pages about how Wikipedia functions, such as WP:POV. Your insistence that Georgia cannot be considered a transcontinental country will have you regarded by other users as a troll. Húsönd 10:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not know the previous history of this discussion, but to me it sounded as if Polscience was indeed arguing for a transcontinental, somewhat undefined status. I have to admit that even though reading his lengthly paragraph, I could not develop a clear picture on what message he is actually trying to convey. The only thing that appears pretty clear to me is that he is very emotional about the issue. However, if we approach this issue a little bit more relaxed, I have hope that there might be consensus along a compromising statement. Perhaps something that makes clear what the majority opinion is, but also mentions that there is no absolute answer - just an idea.

I have just screened the current state of the article (I know, I should have done this earlier). The way Georgia and Azerbaijan are treated there is exactly how I would propose it. The respective footnotes are accurate and also compromise between both points of view. However, I the treatment of Armenia, which appears to be larger than the two other states is not optimal in this context.Tomeasy (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

you are the one who has to stop making racial comments and treat other people like equal and stop implying that that European race is any better than the others. I am not European myself and I dont care which country is in or out. by the way that does not depend on you... wikipedia is the only place were yoursamll brain can express itself just like many other unknowlagable people in here. there is no need for someone to try to make someone "LOOK" like anything else than what they are . they probably would not even claim to be european if they knew that they would be somehow associated with a fascist like you. maybe all those people have to die their hair platinum blonde for you to like them  !--Polscience (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At Polscience: Your tone is really not the best. I have not seen any racial statement here by Husond.Tomeasy (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Polscience, I shall now ask you to read WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Your language, accusations and incivility are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please calm down. Húsönd 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Polscience and nd are both out of line here and should perhaps consider backing away from this topic for a while. Polscience, accusations of racism and calling other users facists are completely unacceptable. You're entitled to your view but have to accept that others aren't obliged to share it. Husond, labelling someone a "Misinformed Georgian POV pusher" is not the way to calm a heated situation, and the view in question is in no way "Georgian POV". I recommend that both of you consider WP:Civil. Thanks. JdeJ (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

what Husond said here was definitely not racist but in his private message to me, he accused me of trying to make someone "LOOK" and appear european. and it sounded to me like he is something so special and europeans are so special that everyone is trying to be like them and that I, a person who has nothing to do with georgia in any way am accused of pushing POV and trying to make them "LOOK" european. who does he think he is. I will definitely stop posting these messages and stop disturbing everyone on this board. its not worth doing just because of his arrogance. no one is "trying" to be something that they are not and there is no need to be "european" at all. I am not european and I am proud of who I am and I hope so are most of the people. Just because he is probably more experienced in wikipedia and has all those worthless "awards" does not mean that he has the right to put what ever he wants. my tone was definitely not the best but thats the only way I could respond to his supercilious and subtle comments that looked like nothing special on the surface. he managed to do that even with such usually inaudible person like me. I regret that I even started talking to him about his issue. its just that it would be unfair if I did not do it. I have to say that calling him fascist was not a good idea, on the other hand I have to admit that I really think he is racist and it is absolutely unacceptable. Reason why I think he is : ( even though he admits borders are not established yet, he can easily put countries in asia, but cant in europe. it means he determined the borders himself according to whatever i said before.. OMIT those countries completely. dont make articles at all. who cares, its just sad that people like him are on this website and I also believe that I and not him will be BANNED for these comments because I am LESS than him and he is the BEST editor on earth with many awards and whats the most important is that he is EUROPEAN and the rest of us are not. !!! --Polscience (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Polscience please cease your accusations and incivility at once. Focus on the topic you're discussing, not on users whom you disagree with. Húsönd 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

oh please, I think my arguments need a better response than just you calling for ceasing accusations.Its just that you dont even have an answer and you know exactly what you meant when you said that I am trying to make someone "LOOK" european. what do you mean by concentrating on the topic? I said enough about the topic. we BOTH agreed that borders are not established yet, that is why putting them in several regions but europe is uaaceptable. It either needs to be in Asian section as it is now already, or in the western asian section where it is now already as well, or the european section where it is listed as western asian or it does not have to be there at all.it is everywjere but in europe even though borders are not official yet? WHY do you think it is very easy for you to put them in asia, or western asia and not europe even though the borders are not established ? why do you think those people and me( I can imagine how big you think of you as european) are trying to "LOOK" and be european? what gives you the right to give that supercilious evaluation ? you are BIASED , thats the only explanation.YES, I am accusing you and I am accusing you of being a racist and being a paranoid that thinks that everyone is trying to be European and HUSOND is a brave person who does everything to protect them from "Unnessesary" people and people who he thinks are LESS than him personally because he is european. Europe is like a priviledged section where countries can be put thats why its hard for them to be there and not hard to be in middle east even though the article itself says that first european homo georgicus was found in georgia.next time if you will bother to write a response, I urge you to adress all these REAL issues instead of calling for ceasing accusations. --Polscience (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to WP on the geographical location of Georgia have been completely against consensus and unsupported by any reliable sources. You have removed all mention of Georgia from some articles when it suited you. This does not seem to be constructive WP editing and verges on vandalism. Please desist. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion note m covers the necessary facts about the topic and readers wishing for further info can go to the Georgia article. So why don't we leave this discussion here and try to improve the article rather than fight each other. I would like to get it to FA status in the not to distant future and I would greatly appreciate all of your help. Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to succeed. Please do not patronise other WP editors. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am personally tired of arguing with these people who dont seem to understand anything.

TO MATHSCI: please go and get busy with mathematics. your expertise is completely irrelevant and worthless in this and many other sections of the similar nature. thank you for understanding --Polscience (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Polscience, I will block you, again, if you continue with this unacceptable behavior towards other users. For the last time, please respect WP:Civil. Thank you. Húsönd 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I did not follow the rules. next time I will definately consider it. I just thought that he would be more valuable to the math section than this one. thats all I wanted to say. I promise to be polite in the future and thats for sure not because I am afraid that you will block me.have a wonderful day .--Polscience (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You also continue to push your notion that Georgia must be entirely European. Please do not change the data on the article referring to the European part of Georgia to include the entire country. In fact, there's a hidden note next to those numbers explicitly asking users not to change the data without discussing it first. You've ignored the note and have done unilateral changes twice already. Please do not pursue with this. Thank you. Húsönd 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

as I remember all I did was that I changed the data because it was entirely wrong. area instead of 69,700 was saying only 2.000 and the population was 32,ooo or something like that . I know that there is a NOTE and I did nto do anything to it. I think there are also many other countries with the same entirely incorrect data. today I changed only georgia and armenia and next time I will try to fix most of them if someone will not do it before me.(for example azerbaijan has the same data problems as well on the Europe page) I hope you will not abuse your power and block me for doing that too. thank you--Polscience (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

HUSOND: the data on that page that I was trying to fix and you reverted is entirely wrong, Georgia armenia, azerbaijan , that is NOT their actual teritory and population. I urge you not to change the data correction just because it was me. if you will look at the list you will see that the numbers are entirely WRONG. you dont have to believe me, just go to the page of one of the countries and see that the actual data is very different.--Polscience (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Polscience, the data regarding Georgia on the table is only respective of its European part. Your "correction" changed the data to the entire area and population of Georgia. Not right. And I am not picking on you as you insist/repeat below, I am simply averting some disruption you've been causing to this and other articles. Please understand that. Húsönd 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

well OK, but now Im wondering why is Armenia so large, does it have a such big portion of its population and area in Europe or do you just like them more? and another thing is how did you calculate how many people live on the european portions ?--Polscience (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To Mathsci: I was not patronising anyone and I am very sorry if my remark came across that way. I was merely trying to end a seemingly friutless discussion. And get some good done to the article rather than offending each other. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I, at least, did not interpret your remark as patronising in any way. I do disagree with it, though. "Note m" is unsourced and especially problematic if combined with "note k". The decision on which parts of which countries to include in the table seems completely arbitrary (read: original research) and not based on any geographical reality. If only a small part of Georgia and Turkey are located in Europe, how on earth could all of Armenia be located here? JdeJ (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all agreeing that the treatment of Armenia in the list is inconsistent, at least when compared to Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Furthermore, it appears to be original research, if we partition some countries and make up numbers for the part that we declare to be European. And at last, we cannot simply leave those transitional countries completely out or put them in completely without further mentioning. I hope this problem description is (at least roughly) supported by everyone. I find the issue complicated and delicate, nevertheless it requires an appropriate treatment.

Well, then we should go one step ahead now and discuss how such an appropriate statement can be designed. The creation of something sound is of course much more complicated then the dismissal of something unsound. Therefore I would like to encourage all of you to make constructive propositions towards a (new) solution and abandon for the time being the criticism of the status quo. Tomeasy (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. The ideal would be a couple of authorative sources agreeing on the borders of Europe. The problem is that even if we find five such sources, we're very likely to find a good deal of authorative sources making another limitation of the continent. My suggestion for the moment is to include all of Georgia in the table. It is already placed in a section of the table making it clear that there are disagreements about it, so it should not be a problem. Needless to say, Armenia should stay in the same way. While that might not be the utopic ideal version, I consider it an improvement to the perceived original research and strange borders of the current version. JdeJ (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I am not very popular on this board but I think I still have a say on this issue. I think that to solve the problem completely we need to determine the borders between the two continents (which at this points seems impossible) if we could determine the borders then some one very comitted to the article could count the cities or the populations of the entire regions in the european portion and add them together to get a rough and NOT exact population number. well again as we dont know where the border goes we cant do Even that. that is why I think at this point we should either include all of their population or not include them at all, That is all we have to agree on.. I personally would never imagine that someone would put a portion of the pupulation on the chart does not matter how many explanatory note will they add especially when you dont have an exact population. ( and will probably never have if you will not count village by village which is impossible) we must agree that countries dont sort their populations by the European portion or the asian portion. same about Russia. I dont even know where did they get this practice: including the European portion population............hhhmm. one second some users here say borders are NOT determined officially and they dont want to be biased, the other second they know the exact populations. it is very interesting indeed ! I hope all of you will express what you think here to finally do some thing about it without labeling it as "georgian POV" or banning each other. thank you--Polscience (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong country data on EUROPE PAGE

I saw that data of Georgia and turkey are not correct. I can say more, they are not even close, the numbers are just so different that they dont even make sense. for example for Turkey the area was saying 24,ooo while for georgia 2,000 when in reality it should be more than 783,ooo for Turkey and 69,700 for georgia. The population is entirely wrong too. I tried to fix it but dear User:Husond who probably has some personal problems with me after the recent dispute, undid my change and now its showing the wrong data again. could someone please take care of it?! I think he has to concentrate more on the correctness of the article than the person who makes them.

HUSOND: the data on that page that I was trying to fix and you reverted is entirely wrong, Georgia armenia, azerbaijan , that is NOT their actual teritory and population. I urge you not to change the data correction just because it was me. if you will look at the list you will see that the numbers are entirely WRONG. you dont have to believe me, just go to the page of one of the countries and see that the actual data is very different.--Polscience (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Polscience: Please, stop taking everything personal. Nobody, is opposing you because it is you. It is just the issue itself that Husond seems to interpret differently than you. The change that you have made was really wrong having the attached footnote in mind. I actually support the version that is standing as I support you argumentation that Georgia's status is not absolutely clear. But I think that this is being fairly treated by the footnote, explaining the small sizes of those countries in the list.

Husond: I find the treatment of Armenia very unlucky in this context. It appears being much larger than Georgia and Azerbaijan, whereas it is both smaller in total size and smaller in European size, if you apply the same demarcation line as for the other two countries.Tomeasy (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tomeasy in every aspect. While I disagree with the way Polscience is arguing, I think he is right here. Based on what sources have we arrived at the the current population of Caucasian peoples that live in Europe? The notes are, to be frank, just a large piece of original research without any sources. And how on earth does the borders of Europe find their way to include most of Armenia while skipping over Georgia and Turkey?? This is quite obviously an error and should be fixed immediately. If no sources are given to support these rather strange interpretations, the least bad solution is to include all of Georgia in the table. JdeJ (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

to all those people who said that I did not look at the notes : I did look at the notes but there was nothing different from the rest of the notes when it comes to armenia, despite that, chart included armenia entirely, thats the only reason why I changed it. I understand that I am NOT very EXEPRIENCED in wikipedia but at the same time we have to understand that when you warn someone of bias and "pushing POV", I think we should not forget the mistakes that some of the people dont pay attention to as well.have a wonderful day--Polscience (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on that one. The notes give no support to the data in the tables. In fact, both the notes and the table seems to be original research. JdeJ (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite busy now, just wanted to say that I think that we should probably remove Armenia from the list, as all of its territory is geographically in Asia. Will get back to this later. Húsönd 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

removing Armenia is one step but not a final solution. the main problem is how the population of the European section was calculated in the rest of the countries and even if by some miracle the numbers were somewhat correct,(which I doubt) how is it possible to put a specific number when the borders are not officially defined? maybe its miles longer or shorter, what do you do to that population ? I think the entire population should be included or entirely excluded, and not just Armenia. Its just a common sense. when we say that borders are not defined, how do we know how many people live in a territory which is we dont even know how large ?--Polscience (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You may place {{fact}} tags next to the data presented for the European parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan. That should prompt someone to provide sources for those numbers. If not, they should be erased. Húsönd 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

you mean erasing the countries completely, erasing the data or changing it to the full population ? if we will erase the data it will look very incomplete so I still think it will be better to include the entire population--Polscience (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Erasing the data. The full population cannot be as this article is about the geographical Europe only, and must account for the population and area of geographical Europe only. Húsönd 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

but how do we know what is a geographical Europe if there are no official borders. Instead we have many version of borders. thats something that everyone agrees on.--Polscience (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no easy solution. There are no official borders but there are two widely accepted continental borders. Maybe the table should include data for each of the these border situations (if sources can provide data for them, that is). Húsönd 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point all we can do is to add the maps for different version of bordders near the list where the UN definition map is already.--Polscience (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not go with the Council of Europe member states and include all of the Caucasian countries and Turkey also? 208.49.45.69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask Husond why not.. that is exactly the version that I believe is the best because it is by the council of europe which is the oldest and can say the FIRST organization that started working on the European INTEGRATION. if not their definition then who's?--Polscience (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

thats what I think. I think council of Europe is not a kind of organization that we should look over just because some people think europe is the EU. CoE is older than EU,larger than EU, European flag was made by them In 1955 before the EU adopted it in 1983, briefly it started working on Europe's integration and democracy much earlier and that why I think it should not be ignored just like it was and still is. They were doing that even when the EU was JUST an economical alliance.--Evpri (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the CoE solution is not as easy and clear cut as it may seem. This is a political organization with states joining it (or not) and potentially leaving it (or being exempt). Just see the list of memberships of the CoE. It usually takes many years for a newly established country to join. Some countries established long before the CoE was founded took decades to join (Portugal, Spain, Finland and many more) or did not join at all (Vatican, Belarus). Everyone would agree that these countries were part of Europe even at times when the CoE was already existing but without them. That fact that only since very recently, the union of member states is almost congruent to the extended version of what we are anticipating as Europe, is rather coincidental and might change again. At last, observe that Kazakhstan is not a member. Accordingly, you (Polscience, Evpri) would probably argue it should be excluded from our list, while one might treat Belarus and Vatican as exceptions to the basic rule. But isn't it more commonly agreed on that Kazakhstan has some part in Europe than Armenia? What if the CoE decides to admit Kazakhstan to the club, is this country then Europe but not before, just because some representatives have made this decision?

OK, this was an objection, but objections are easy to put and alone they won't help us finding a solution. I would like to promote the status quo of the section Geography and extent of this page. It might be extended or further improved, of course, but I think we should take the presented reasoning as a basis. As Europe and Asia are tectonically one continent, the distinction is inherently vague. This is why there are multiple border definitions. However, it is far less controversial to decide on which countries make up the group of transitional/disputed countries. Therefore, I think we should include all those countries in the list (Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia) as it is the case now, including a note that they are transitional countries. The figures defining size and population should refer to the entire countries, since we do not have reliable sources to make something up, and we should not make something up ourselves. Once, such sources are found an additional row (or brackets) might be added for the respective country specifying its European part. Preferable this will be done with a footnote that relates to the underlying definition of the demarcation line, pointing out how this line relates to the text in the section Geography and extent. At least with respect to Turkey this could already be done. Tomeasy (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Council of Europe page: Kazakhstan applied for observer status at the Parliamentary Assembly in 1999. The official response of PACE was that Kazakhstan could apply for full membership, because it is partially located in Europe, but that it would not be granted status until its democracy and human rights records improved. Lyräsic (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this detail. It shows how political and time-depended the CoE reasoning would be, if we took this body as the ultimate authority. Had we had this discussion before 1999, Kazakhstan would have been in, now one might take them in because of the above statement. Or others might argue for out, because they are not a member yet. I am afraid, the CoE ruling would not be consistently defensible. Tomeasy (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tomeasy that the table should include the area and the population of the entire country. That is the case already for some countries, such as Spain. The population of those parts of Spain that are geographically African (Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla) is part of the Spanish population in the table. I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if the French population included Frenchmen living in geographical America. Since we don't seem to have any specific, sourced population figures for parts of Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan, I strongly support using the sourced data for the entire countries in the table. JdeJ (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

well another problem is that those countries are referred to as western asian even on the European chart, while the Asian section and Middle east section include them all without even stating anything about europe. that everything implies that someone who edited the page considered those countries more asian than european.I dont think that it can be decided by one, two or does not matter how many editors. I will list things we have to do not to solve but to ease this problem and write whether you agree or not:

''''1, Change the "european population" to the entire population and size. 2. either remove "western asian" countries note from the Europe chart at all or add "european" note on the charts of Asia and Middle east as well to make things clear. 3.Include maps of all of the versions of borders.(I finished it partially)''''

these are all I think we can do AT THIS POINT; write if you agree or not and reason why. I hope it will help a little. --Polscience (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding total populations seems like a reasonable solution. We must keep in mind though that Europe is somewhat of a political/cultural area and its borders have changed through the years. It is not a separate geographic entity and that is why we are having so many different viewpoints on this matter. 12.169.70.10 (talk)

Ok, since there is no easy way to determine the population/area of those parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan that are geographically within Europe, I guess it would be alright for now to add the entire population of transcontinental countries, as long as they're appended notes explaining that their data may not be accurate (and in the case of Armenia, if included, that the data does not apply to geographical Europe at all). Húsönd 20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all three steps that Polscience offered. by the way when I several times heared different officials, they are reffering to that asian territories as " territories of a European state extending into asia" or somehting like that, and one of the maps says that as well I think.I believe it was the US ambassador. Im curently looking for the article. I think thats the best way to put it.--Evpri (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, evpri, it looks good to me too. I also agree with the fact that europe was expanding by all means and as you dont have official borders yet I think we should rely on culture as well. someone said in here culture is irrelevenat. thats if we had borders well defined and if it was actually a separate continent, then culture would probably be definately irrelevan , but now I think it matters more than anything. culture was a and still is something that defines borders between the two as the regions can be all mixed up. I think we should change them to entire populations and think in terms of culture as well. however I do not agree that Kazakhstan is in europe culturally.--Dybbtf (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree too. The thing is that I dont understand how was this unnoticed before today ? were there any other discussions about it ? there are some on this page but irresolute. of course, if not culture that what does define borders when the two continents are practically ONE ? I think they should be included. Not sure about Kazakhstan or armenia. this is a "pain in the butt" topic, sorry for using that word.--NsNr (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, I think culture is very important as well. otherwise there is no way anyone can define borders in the middle of practically one whole Eurasia, its not an island or something. I think I will move on with adding the entire populations--Polscience (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree to point 1 and 3. Point 2, however, still includes aquestion. I wonder how all the other affirmative statements are meant with respect to point 2? My opinion is to keep the regional denominations here as they are, which actually emphasizes on the transcontinentality and to add a note on the Asia page, if necessary.

Furthermore, I agree with Husond that the explanatory notes for those countries are necessary and remain.

With respect to Kazakhstan, we should keep this country in for consistency, to simply include all countries that are controversial. Otherwise, the selection of countries seems again arbitrary again. This would again call for a restart on this issue: Either because people want to remove one more country (e.g. Armenia), arguing with Kazakhstan being already excluded; or they want to bring in Kazakhstan for at least three different reasons besides arguing that even Armenia is in. Mentioning all doubtable candidates is the safest way to a sustainable solution, I think. Tomeasy (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomeasy, some might argue that Kazakhstan's culture is distinct from European, thus placing it in the Central Asian sphere, whereas the Caucasian states have more historical/cultural ties to Europe(At least Georgia and Armenia do, whereas Azerbaijan's culture is predominantly Iranic)

Yes I kind of agree that azerbajan is more iranic.--NsNr (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant! For the countries in question you will always find some arguments for and against their membership in Europe. That is why they are controversial. Kazakhstan has for example it's western part, which is for the purely geographical definitions European. You might be right about the culture. I do not want to decide on this; it would just open Pandora's box. Then we will have it again about Azerbaijan and probably won't stop there. Believe me, the only consistent rational is to list all controversial states. Tomeasy (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note Users Evpri, NsNr and Dybbtf indefinitely blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of user Polscience (also blocked for 31 hours). Húsönd 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Many annoying thing's at once. First of all, if your (Husond) accusation is correct, it would really make me very angry about Polscience. I had just acquired the feeling he was developing in a constructive way.

Second, after a discussion (which was tiresome in the beginning) I think we have reached a far stretching consensus. I have formulated what I understood as consensus again on the talk page of the following user User talk:Kesälauantait‎. So please have a look whether indeed you all agree to this or whether I was just fantasizing. The reason that I placed it on this users talk page is that he simply reverted everything, without ever joining our discussion. Most noticeable the inconsistent treatment of Armenia compared to other transcontinental countries.

According to me the last thing that needs to be done now in this topic: Add the European sizes in addition to the total size in those cases where this can be backed up thoroughly. This can easily be done in the case of Turkey. I can make those edits myself, but I first want to wait and see, if our current status is stable, since I do not want to indulge in edit warring. Tomeasy (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just an explanation. I undid Polscience's changes as a temporary solution, as it is clear that he added more than what was discussed (maps, renaming sections as Europe extending into Asia) etc. I don't disagree with adding the full population of transcontinental countries, however this should be done with a clean slate (prior to Polscience) and with more time (perhaps give the editors who contributed to the article/table in 2006-2007, such as Corticopia a few days to respond). Also, I was concerned about the timeframe as it seemed you, Husond and JdeJ were in the middle of discussing possible solutions when the sockpuppets started appearing. Also, please note that Armenia was added recently (February 2008) so it was a relatively new addition, resulting in the inconsistency. Kesälauantait (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding F.Y.R.O.Macedonia

F.Y.R.O.M. (aka Republic of Macedonia) is mentioned in two sections of this article, namely "Religions" and "Political Geography". The former uses the name "Republic of Macedonia", the latter uses "Macedonia".

I propose that the form "Republic of Macedonia" be used EVERYWHERE in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MOSMAC. Húsönd 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

England/United Kingdom

Do we have a consensus on when we should say 'England' and when we should say 'Britian' or 'United Kingdom'? Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)